Left wing racism rears its ugly head again. [Archive]

Deliberator

01-28-2010, 07:26 PM

I think Matthews was being honest with how preoccupied he is with the fact that Obama is (half) black due to the huge schisms that existed between races when Matthews was growing up. It's a pretty stupid thing to say though because I think most people (like myself) aren't so preoccupied with the presidential skin color that we have to take all of his actions and comments in the context of his unprecedented brownness. Maybe that's just me being naive.

In any case people need to stop throwing the word racist around when it's obvious the person is just being "racially insensitive". Racism is the belief or suggestion that one race is inherently superior to another in one or more aspects.

Because of how I grew up and the fact that I work in an area full of foreigners of all races, I think of being "black" as being more of a cultural descriptor. In this sense Obama is much closer in culture to me than he is to the average african-american, so the fact that his skin is sort of darkish is of little note to me.

Arkeph

01-28-2010, 07:56 PM

It's usually inappropriate to generalize an individual's behavior to the group he belongs to.

Ray9

01-28-2010, 08:05 PM

Aronnax

01-28-2010, 08:19 PM

My view is more jaded and I think more realistic. Those on the left prosletyze endlessly about the evils of racism and yet they themselves are saturated with it. The difference is they use it to their advantage by exploiting it to empower themselves. A slip of the tongue is what usually betrays them.

---------- Post added 01-28-2010 at 10:11 PM ----------

I don't like leftists. I expose their hypocrisy every chance I get. Call me inappropriate, call me a Philistine if you want to.

Why, are you originally from Palestine? If so I'm not sure how your lineage figures into it.

If I had to characterize you I'd say you're a world weary old man who finds comfort in conservative policies. The accuracy of some of the statements coming from the left trigger your sense of morality so you hunt for hypocrisy or inconsistencies to justify your position. Filling yourself with righteous indignation is a good way to avoid taking action.

Arkeph

01-28-2010, 08:19 PM

It's not about being polite (in this case), but about being careful not to stuff one's own foot in one's mouth. If generalizing about the group you dislike is valid, then there is no coherent defense against the same applied to a group you agree with.

Ray9

01-28-2010, 08:21 PM

Chris Matthews is a Democrat??

Since when?

On November 28, 2008, Fivethirtyeight.com and The Politico reported that Matthews has been in contact with senior staffers of Obama's campaign about a possible run.[12][13] On January 7, 2009, The New York Times reported that Matthews told his staffers that he would not run for the Senate.[14] On May 25 2009 Chris Matthews appeared on the Charlie Rose show where he stated that he was intending to run for Arlen Specter's senate seat in 2010 stating "I could see myself winning the democratic primary and I could see myself going on to face Arlen in the general [election]," but that he felt he had to decide between being a journalist and being a politician once Specter became a national figure by supporting the stimulus.

dungeonguy88

01-28-2010, 08:27 PM

Are people still discussing this? I hope I don't appear racist when I say this, but to me it didn't seem terribly racist, at least in the context of the many racist comments that have been made before on national television, coming from both sides; not to mention some of the more patronizing actions taken by politicians before now. (Michael Steele, in particular comes to mind, but there are many on both sides that have been condescending towards minority groups in their actions and messages)

Ray9

01-28-2010, 08:38 PM

Why, are you originally from Palestine?

No, I'm originally from Buffalo and my lineage is more Jewish than Arab. And I'm not old. I'm aged-- not like wine, more like whiskey. My friends and I all sit around a pot bellied stove with our feet up on a crackerbarrel and tell jokes about liberals.

Nemesis

01-28-2010, 08:42 PM

*Quietly hums "Puff, the Magic Dragon"... or was it, "Barack, the Magic Negro"?*

LaoTzu

01-28-2010, 08:43 PM

Call me inappropriate, call me a Philistine if you want to.

I have some further suggestions.... but the kids might be reading along.

Matthews is a douche. Running as a Dem, does not a Dem make.

dogwoodlover

01-28-2010, 08:48 PM

Wait, so, how was this racist again? I got this vague notion that it was so because the topic of race was brought up.

My understanding of "racism" has mostly been that believing a particular racial group is innately superior or deserving of preferential treatment.

To be honest, I don't really detect any of that in the aforementioned article.

LaoTzu

01-28-2010, 08:53 PM

I think it's racist to 'make note' of race... in the sense that if you were 100% not racist, you wouldn't think to mention it.
This, of course relegates a vast majority to the 'racist' camp... so it's not really viable at all.... just a liberal pipe dream...

It's safer for anyone in the public eye to not even mention race... as evidenced here.
But there has to be at least a little common sense when it does come up.

Mader

01-28-2010, 08:59 PM

Ray9

01-28-2010, 09:00 PM

My understanding of "racism" has mostly been that believing a particular racial group is innately superior or deserving of preferential treatment.

You have to read between the lines and understand what a backhanded compliment "I almost forgot he was black" is. In other words he's not like the usual blacks who are inferior.

boverc

01-28-2010, 11:07 PM

You have to read between the lines and understand what a backhanded compliment "I almost forgot he was black" is. In other words he's not like the usual blacks who are inferior.

I don't buy this. "I almost forgot he was black/white/green/whatever" might just mean 'he seemed, to me, to speak with such little bias, I almost forgot that he might have roots in a ethnic background with known biases.'

I don't mean to defend chris matthews here, don't know much about him honestly, just defending the right to speak about race without being attacked for perceived subconscious 'slips' or 'leaks'.

pip

01-29-2010, 03:51 AM

Hay Ray, just thought you might want to consider a tiny fact.... (As uncomfortable for you as it may be)

Both the Democrat AND Republican parties of the good ol' USofA are very firmly on the right of that particular spectrum.
So that in fact means that any fault you might find with your shiny new president is actually picking at your own 'team' and gives me a rather warm fuzzy feeling inside due to the comical irony.
Just sayin'. :p

zibber

01-29-2010, 05:19 AM

White people say awkward things sometimes. Don't take one line that was meant positively and obsess over it like this.

Seriously. Imus is racist. Your friend Rush is too. Matthews meant well.

... you know, I'm getting so sick of these nasty, malevolent personal attacks. The title alone is a cancerous little work of art.

"Left wing racism". This implies that there is such a thing and that it is absolutely typical for left wingers to be racist.

"Rears its ugly head". This further reinforces the notion that there is something like left wing racism and that it is very well known.

"Again". Need I explain how unfair this word is, here?

This is how people are messing up any shred that remained of any kind of "critical public discourse". If you have criticism, that is fine. State it. Explicate it.

If you had chosen a reasonable (a relative word in this context, I know) thread title, you would have had something like "Chris Matthews made a comment that might be offensive to black people". That instantly shows that this is NOT worthy of a whole new thread, at all. You implicitly placed it in a broader context, but completely (and deliberately) failed to expand on the implication.

Shauru

01-29-2010, 07:04 AM

I'm sorry I didn't take the stance I'm about to take with the Harry Reid gaff, but I'm doing it now.

What's your point? I'm with Zibber this stuff is getting old. Seriously, is there nothing better to discuss than when some idiot makes a dumb ass comment. We're all human we all do it.

I don't care what Don Imus said, I don't care what Harry Reid said, I don't care what Michael Steele said, and I don't care what Chris Matthews said.

Let's face facts. Old men use the ideas and vernacular of their time, which in modern times can cause a bit of a snag. People who pay more attention to this than real political issues do a real disservice to intelligent political discourse.

And you guys can cry all you want but Trent Lott was a moron. You don't prepare remarks for someone's birthday party and then endorse the segregationist ticket. There are tons of better ways he could have handled it.

The rest of these cases are cheap and petty and no one gains any ground by trying to play spot the racist comment and dwell on it forever.

boldbidder

01-29-2010, 07:19 AM

Ray, please, that wasn't racist in any way shape or form. He further went on to explain what he meant during his lil monologue and even went so far as to say that maybe she shouldn't be talking about it. The comment was genuine, he didn't need his publicist to help him backtrack, he explained what he meant on the spot.

And please 86 the whole left wing racism thing. If you want to argue about some lefty policy and the perpetuating cycles of poverty, fine lets do that in another thread. Just throwing random stuff out like 'left wing racism' is laughable. At least relabel the posts to be 'less racist left wing' in light of the fact that the right wing ignores brown people altogether. Suppose that's just tough love though, I ignore that you exist nor do I care to be your friend, but boy do I care about ya!

themuzicman

01-29-2010, 07:48 AM

"This is a historic election"
"Did Obama win because he was black?"
"No"
"Then why is this a historic election?"

The fact is that for the left, when a black man (or woman) is involved, it's all about race. And Chris Matthews is simply the latest example of this kind of racism. Was Tony Dungee's victory as a coach in the year that he won the superbowl special? Not any more special than any other superbowl winning coach. Unless you see race, unless you are racist.

Yes, Jackie Robinson's entry into MLB was significant because everyone saw race back then. Now, only the left makes note of it, and degrades the accomplishment of black individuals when they do achieve by making note of their race.

For Chris Matthews to admit that for the first time he forgot that Obama was black uncovers a deep seeded attitude about black people: He doesn't think they could cut it, if they were white.

Shauru

01-29-2010, 07:57 AM

The fact is that for the left, when a black man (or woman) is involved, it's all about race. And Chris Matthews is simply the latest example of this kind of racism. Was Tony Dungee's victory as a coach in the year that he won the superbowl special? Not any more special than any other superbowl winning coach. Unless you see race, unless you are racist.

Yes, Jackie Robinson's entry into MLB was significant because everyone saw race back then. Now, only the left makes note of it, and degrades the accomplishment of black individuals when they do achieve by making note of their race.

Great. So anyone who can see within the normal human color spectrum is a racist.
And yes. Many a head of a black person has been hung in shame for being noted as the first black X. I'm sure Obama cries himself to sleep every night in that mansion of his, just wishing he could be #44 and not #1.

In a country with our particular racial background. It is doubly stupid to think no special recognition is worthwhile while simultaneously ignoring all the damage that was done because of race. It's really hard for me to swallow that 50 years after desegregation, etc. that all is well and we can all pretend race doesn't exist. My dad still remembers his parents refusing a neighborhood petition to remove a black family from their neighborhood. I bet all of his neighborhood friends also remember what their parents taught them when they chose to sign it.

It's not over. And it will fade. But you can't expect some great big white line drawn down in time for all us to go, "Yeah ok we're done with that whole bit."

For Chris Matthews to admit that for the first time he forgot that Obama was black uncovers a deep seeded attitude about black people: He doesn't think they could cut it, if they were white.

Naturally. There is no other equally plausible conclusion that could be drawn from his statements.

boldbidder

01-29-2010, 08:01 AM

Acknowledging race doesn't equate to having some deep seeded attitude about black people. Conservatives going out of their way to profess how color blind they are wouldn't sound so hollow if when they bandied about their group wasn't so painfully homogeneous e.g. older, male, & white.

themuzicman

01-29-2010, 08:06 AM

Great. So anyone who can see within the normal human color spectrum is a racist.

Do you really think that I meant this? Stop being obtuse.

And yes. Many a head of a black person has been hung in shame for being noted as the first black X. I'm sure Obama cries himself to sleep every night in that mansion of his, just wishing he could be #44 and not #1.

I'm quote sure Obama is proud of being the first black man. He participates in the false adulation given in this day and age for being the first black anything.

Is there no room on the left for recognizing something in Obama without saying "for a black man" on the end of it?

Are Tony Dungee's accomplishments significant in and of themselves, or because he is black?

In a country with our particular racial background. It is doubly stupid to think no special recognition is worthwhile while simultaneously ignoring all the damage that was done because of race.

So, accomplishing something as a black person will always be significant because they were black and did it anyway? Really?

It's really hard for me to swallow that 50 years after desegregation, etc. that all is well and we can all pretend race doesn't exist. My dad still remembers his parents refusing a neighborhood petition to remove a black family from their neighborhood. I bet all of his neighborhood friends also remember what their parents taught them when they chose to sign it.

That's two generations removes. Your dad remember when his parents...

It's not over. And it will fade. But you can't expect some great big white line drawn down in time for all us to go, "Yeah ok we're done with that whole bit."

Well, it isn't going to fade at all with the likes of Chris Matthews around. And it will begin to fade when these kinds of racial comments become unacceptable.

Naturally. There is no other equally plausible conclusion that could be drawn from his statements.

LOL... I'm sure the left has some stupid spin for this, but not, there isn't.

Shauru

01-29-2010, 08:10 AM

MusicMan do you really gain any gratification from passing this off as a problem on the left? Do you even seriously believe this is all the left's fault?

Wapiti

01-29-2010, 08:14 AM

Left or right, if I were to say something to the effect of "I almost forgot he was black" about anyone in authority in the company in which I work, well it just wouldn't have a happy ending for me that I can see.

themuzicman

01-29-2010, 08:25 AM

MusicMan do you really gain any gratification from passing this off as a problem on the left? Do you even seriously believe this is all the left's fault?

Not at all. There are racist elements on both left and right. The biggest difference is that the right keeps their racists marginalized, where as the left elevates them.

Slavery was something that was admitted and tolerated for almost 100 years of the US's existence. However, the republican party was formed because the Whigs wouldn't act on slavery (and elected its first president in 1860... I think you know who that was), and the Democrat party has traditionally dominated the south, and has been the traditional home of segregationists and racists. And, again, with the passage of the CRA 1964, a larger percentage of republicans voted for that bill than democrats. LBJ praised the GOP for it's support in pushing through the bill.

James William Fulbright, avid racist, was Al Gore mentor. Robert Byrd (Sen D-VA) is a former bigwig in the KKK. George Wallace made a very serious run at the presidency on a racist platform.

Obviously there has been a struggle in the Democrat party for some time over race. But racism remains there among many of its prominent supporters.

dogwoodlover

01-29-2010, 11:59 AM

You do understand that the Republicans represented the "left" and the Democrats the "right" prior to the 20th century, yes?

Their similarities to the modern parties are purely nominal.

INTJRyan

01-29-2010, 12:33 PM

Not at all. There are racist elements on both left and right. The biggest difference is that the right keeps their racists marginalized, where as the left elevates them.

Right. I mean just look at this national leader of the democrats. Very racist. Those darn leftists and their racism.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You can really tell he is a racist, leftist pig by his hat, which reads "Man of Faith."

Ray9

01-29-2010, 02:39 PM

Seriously. Imus is racist. Your friend Rush is too. Matthews meant well.

... you know, I'm getting so sick of these nasty, malevolent personal attacks. The title alone is a cancerous little work of art.

"Left wing racism". This implies that there is such a thing and that it is absolutely typical for left wingers to be racist.

"Rears its ugly head". This further reinforces the notion that there is something like left wing racism and that it is very well known.

"Again". Need I explain how unfair this word is, here?

Oh, the righteous indignation! Do you believe the audacity of someone who criticizes deciples of the "correct" way of thinking? This carping is reminiscent of the response you'd expect from newly brainwashed members of a religious cult. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if Mathews had exclaimed: "I almost forgot he was Mexican"? Or "I almost forgot he was Asian"? Or "I almost forgot he was a Jew"? Or "I almost forgot she was a woman"? Leftist racism is deep-seated (and by the way it is deep-seated, not deep-seeded) and cleverly subtle. Leftists and Democrats regard the black man as the tool of choice to manipulate popular sentiment and expand their power base.

SeaCzar

01-29-2010, 03:08 PM

This and other threads about Matthews, Lott, Biden, Reid et al made me think.....

Since there is only one race (homo sapiens), ther is no racism, only ignorance. And ignorance knows no political bounds.

LaoTzu

01-29-2010, 05:28 PM

Obviously there has been a struggle in the Democrat party for some time over race. But racism remains there among many of its prominent supporters.

You ever heard of the "Southern Strategy" ??

It's no coincidence that the Right is MORE associated with racism..., though racism is an issue for both parties.

Syntax

01-29-2010, 06:03 PM

Yeah, I didn't really get a racist vibe from this either. His statement was a bit ambiguous(which is dangerous when talking about something that people are prone to react to in a knee-jerk fashion), but it didn't take much inspection to understand what he was saying and that it was in no way ill-intended nor racist. And his follow up statement just puts this in cement:

"I grew up in a country that was driven apart by race right until the '60s. You couldn't have a black member of the U.S. Cabinet. There were no black cabinet members in the Kennedy administration. It has been such a big part of our life.... To see a president of the United States who is African Amercan, I was thinking tonight, this isn't even an issue tonight. How far we've come in just a year.... President Obama has done something wonderful. I thing he's taken us beyond black and white in our politics...and I'm loving it."

jm123

01-29-2010, 06:46 PM

You ever heard of the "Southern Strategy" ??

It's no coincidence that the Right is MORE associated with racism..., though racism is an issue for both parties.

Please read the recent thread on left-sided racism, as this is about as bad of a statement as this thread title.

However, yes it is completely ok for the left side to be racist as the right side is said to be more racist.:rolleyes:

The simple fact of the issue, is that both sides have their problems, and the first one to clean them up will win.

Ray9

01-29-2010, 07:39 PM

You either see it or you don't see it. You're either completely fooled by the mask or you know the true identity. Liberals and progressives seem to have this fanciful, gullible view of the world that makes them instinctively blinded to the hypocrisy of those who carry the torch for their ideology. Mathews injected race into the issue because at his core he is racist. There was no other reason to even mention race because Obama is in his second year as president. He glossed it over with a platitude and that was enough for the progressives who backed away genuflecting. It's almost funny. In fact it is funny.

Syntax

01-29-2010, 07:51 PM

larkin

01-29-2010, 07:57 PM

However, yes it is completely ok for the left side to be racist as the right side is said to be more racist.:rolleyes:

Come on, whoever said it was okay for the left to be racist? There have undoubtedly been racists on the left. Some people think what Matthews said was racist, most people seem to think no, there's absolutely no evidence that's he's particularly leftist. I personally have not heard the whole of the speech and won't comment. Suffice it to say I think the term racism is overused and not to be deployed for gotcha games, slips of the tongue, general insensitivity. In my book that applies to Trent Lott as much as Joe Biden. All you have to do is apologize and mean it.

This is what makes this manufactured outrage so intolerable. From the same party that actively kisses the ass of people like Rush and Glenn Beck, who go out of their way to say offensive things and never apologize, and then has the gall to claim:

The biggest difference is that the right keeps their racists marginalized, where as the left elevates them.

Yeah, it sure seems like they're marginalized, doesn't it? You can't make claims like this and have any reasonable credibility.

But, want to prove me wrong, apologize for statements like this:

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

I'm not holding my breath, not one Republican here has bothered to disavow this shit yet.

Ray9

01-29-2010, 08:15 PM

I'm not holding my breath, not one Republican here has bothered to disavow this shit yet.

That could be because he may never have made that statement. There are serious questions about the veracity of some of these quotes as they originate on left wing attack sites.

phej

01-29-2010, 08:19 PM

The full video clip with its context. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

jm123

01-29-2010, 08:26 PM

Come on, whoever said it was okay for the left to be racist? There have undoubtedly been racists on the left. Some people think what Matthews said was racist, most people seem to think no, there's absolutely no evidence that's he's particularly leftist. I personally have not heard the whole of the speech and won't comment. Suffice it to say I think the term racism is overused and not to be deployed for gotcha games, slips of the tongue, general insensitivity. In my book that applies to Trent Lott as much as Joe Biden. All you have to do is apologize and mean it.

I completely agree with you. Racism is an over played issue. It is overplayed by both sides, a lot of conservatives use it to motivate racist-whites and liberals to motivate gullible minorities. The topic breeds hate from both sides, and that is why it is so prevalent in politics. I believe that the intellectual majority of the country is tired of it. Once one of the parties can shut this crap down, they will win the vast majority of American citizens to their cause. Whites will no longer be the majority in this country by around 2050 and the sooner politicians realize this, the better.

The reason I was making that comment was, that if someone makes a comment about how Democrats are racist. The response by some are that Republicans are worse, just like in the quote I was addressing. If you look at my first sentence, I was saying that I thought the title to this thread was bad, just like the response that Republicans are worse.

Holiman

01-29-2010, 10:38 PM

Here is what I dont understand Ray, when a someone talks about supposed unfaire treatment of a black athelete. This is knee jerk racism sold by the liberal media. Minority kids thrown out of a pool again knee jerk racism just to sell airtime. But you find a huge conspiracy over one comment that some people might find objectionable.

Could it just happen maybe just maybe we see what we want to see, if we look for racsism we find it if we look for liberal conscpiracies we find them. Sorry I just find this post sad.

zibber

01-29-2010, 11:47 PM

That could be because he may never have made that statement. There are serious questions about the veracity of some of these quotes as they originate on left wing attack sites.

He said all of that on live radio.

Did the left wing hate mongers break into his airtime and digitally impersonate his voice? They are always running around with their Macbooks; who knows what these beatniks are up to. With their damned long hair and their tolerance for strangers and all that crap.

kepstein8888

01-30-2010, 06:02 AM

To be fair, I think Obama could have worn more bling or done a few tap dance moves during his State of the Union to remind Chris Matthews that he's half black.

Matthews reminds me of John Madden. I don't even think he knows what he's saying half the time, and just starts mumbling off on a tangent. Maybe he should use a magic marker during the next SOTU and circle all of the black people so we know which is which.

Ray9

01-30-2010, 09:37 AM

He said all of that on live radio.

Prove it to me. I'd like to hear it.

Holiman

01-30-2010, 11:45 AM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Those comments have mostly been documented as true, however you want to split the hairs of the ones that are not documented is up to you.

LaoTzu

01-30-2010, 01:53 PM

However, yes it is completely ok for the left side to be racist as the right side is said to be more racist.:rolleyes:

The simple fact of the issue, is that both sides have their problems, and the first one to clean them up will win.

My historical injection shows an institutionalized method to GOP madness, whereas Liberal
racism seems confined more to individuals. Which one would you consider worse.

Not to backtrack, but I find it obvious that there is an institutionalized effort to marginalize minorities; seen in the disproportion of prison populations, and the poor. This could not come from just one side of the aisle.

I don't, however subscribe to the Right's assertion that Lib's need those poor and disadvantaged people to promote their agenda. Liberals speak more to the middle class IMO.

Ray9

01-30-2010, 03:01 PM

Those comments have mostly been documented as true, however you want to split the hairs of the ones that are not documented is up to you.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The quotes attributed to Limbaugh are bogus and anyone with an ounce of sense wouldn't post them because none of them are sourced. They all just come from vitriolic left wing media outlets and websites.

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 05:18 PM ----------

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you watch this it's clear that among other things Mathews is delusional. His sappy, giddy appraisal of Obama is not only way over the top, it's absolutely out of touch with reality. Obama was not elected for posessing any qualities of greatness, he was elected because he has black skin and for the public's discontent with the previous administration. This was no great event in American history, Obama's election was just a blatant example of shallow tokenism which is really what progressives and liberals are all about.

Holiman

01-30-2010, 03:39 PM

Not sure why I try with you ray since its obviouse you didnt look into snopes documentation maybe youll check into this one but I doubt it. It does by the way offer links to audio or articles as snopes did. No as I stated not all of them are documented but enough are to make the remaining consistant enough that no ones cares. This doesnt mean to me he is a rascist but he did admit to telling a caller to "take the bone out of his nose and call back."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nemesis

01-30-2010, 03:47 PM

First you said...

Mathews injected race into the issue because at his core he is racist. There was no other reason to even mention race because Obama is in his second year as president.

... and then you said...

Obama was not elected for posessing any qualities of greatness, he was elected because he has black skin and for the public's discontent with the previous administration.

What's your reason to mention race, Ray?

LaoTzu

01-30-2010, 03:56 PM

I would have thought an INTJ to be too independent of mind to listen to the likes Limbaugh...let alone defend him.

jm123

01-30-2010, 04:11 PM

My historical injection shows an institutionalized method to GOP madness, whereas Liberal
racism seems confined more to individuals. Which one would you consider worse.

Not to backtrack, but I find it obvious that there is an institutionalized effort to marginalize minorities; seen in the disproportion of prison populations, and the poor. This could not come from just one side of the aisle.

I don't, however subscribe to the Right's assertion that Lib's need those poor and disadvantaged people to promote their agenda. Liberals speak more to the middle class IMO.

Look up history than as Democrats have been the historically racist party for civil rights voting from the 1950/60's and earlier. You were changing the subject, and not being entirely historically accurate. I went into depth on the last thread on this discussion, which ended in a stalemate/disagreement. Again, it was you can't call us racist because republicans are perceived as a more racist than us.* It was off topic and a slight of hand.(The sad thing is that it was in a poorly titled and sensationalist thread)

Also the middle class and up carries the tax burden of the country. So no the social programs that the liberal side promotes and advocates are not for the middle class. The middle class carries this weight, and the media does not run stories about some of this crap.

Ex.
Being poor is much more profitable then you understand. In Michigan for example, a family of 6 with two parents and children under 5 could potentially be given over $20,000 in handouts with an income of around the same, and better health-care then 98% of the population. It is a viable career option for a single women to just continue having children for over 20 years, and never work a day until her youngest child is over 5. Then she would receive completely free career training due to her unfair hand in life. People move to my state to do this kind of crap, and take advantage of our handouts. So while the statistics show that the majority of poor are minorities, it is hard to say why that is. Is it a symptom of racism, or the fact that it is an easy viable career path to the middle class lifestyle?

By the way, I believe in the helping hand-up principle, and not the handout style our country currently has. I would love it if we improved our education process to help people. This is why I can identify with both parties and I am waiting for one or the other to take the initiative.

*Republicans have rightfully/wrongly been called racist over the last 40 years, because racist southern Democrats have hid under the freedom of the conservative ideology, and some republicans have pursued this brand of hate. In time the Republicans will piss them off by denouncing this behavior, and then the Democrats will have them back. The whole supposed southern strategy was getting the racist southern Democrats to vote Republican instead of Democrat.

LaoTzu

01-30-2010, 04:23 PM

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is....

jm123

01-30-2010, 04:26 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is....

Yeah neither am I, read the other thread.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

larkin

01-30-2010, 05:20 PM

Look up history than as Democrats have been the historically racist party for civil rights voting from the 1950/60's and earlier. You were changing the subject, and not being entirely historically accurate. I went into depth on the last thread on this discussion, which ended in a stalemate/disagreement. Again, it was you can't call us racist because republicans are perceived as a more racist than us.* It was off topic and a slight of hand.(The sad thing is that it was in a poorly titled and sensationalist thread)

*Republicans have rightfully/wrongly been called racist over the last 40 years, because racist southern Democrats have hid under the freedom of the conservative ideology, and some republicans have pursued this brand of hate. In time the Republicans will piss them off by denouncing this behavior, and then the Democrats will have them back. The whole supposed southern strategy was getting the racist southern Democrats to vote Republican instead of Democrat.

And what a fabulous success it was.

That thread ended in disagreement over a point that's totally irrelevant to this discussion. Seriously, JM, you can't tell the difference between a party taking political advantage of purposely being insulting to minorities in order to curry favor with racists (and doing so through the party's primary spokespeople), and a variety of people, from Trent Lott to Chris Matthews, making stupid or insensitive statements?

Hat tip: the difference is intent and remorse.

firebee

01-30-2010, 05:29 PM

Look up history than as Democrats have been the historically racist party for civil rights voting from the 1950/60's and earlier.

And do refresh my memory, but what year is it now? The Democrats were once the party of racism, then they ceased to serve the interests of the racist component of their constituency, with the result that the Republicans picked them up by offering them what they wanted.

The whole supposed southern strategy was getting the racist southern Democrats to vote Republican instead of Democrat.

Those racist southern Democrats have been voting Republican for the past fifty years. Folks not attempting to engage in conversational sleight of hand might be inclined to call them Republicans at this point.

jm123

01-30-2010, 06:11 PM

And what a fabulous success it was.

That thread ended in disagreement over a point that's totally irrelevant to this discussion. Seriously, JM, you can't tell the difference between a party taking political advantage of purposely being insulting to minorities in order to curry favor with racists (and doing so through the party's primary spokespeople), and a variety of people, from Trent Lott to Chris Matthews, making stupid or insensitive statements?

Hat tip: the difference is intent and remorse.

I am not the one taking this thread on a tangent. I have been telling him to refer to the other thread. The title of this thread was "Left wing racism rears its ugly head again." again I pointed out that it was a bad and sensationalist title. He was the one interjecting about the historical TRUTH about Republican racism. I asked him to see the other thread for that discussion. Then I pointed out that it was irelevant as racism is racism. Now others are again trying to make this about Republican racism.

Hat tip: Racism is wrong; context does not matter. The longer the country dwells on the color of skin, the longer these disscusions will be had.

And do refresh my memory, but what year is it now? The Democrats were once the party of racism, then they ceased to serve the interests of the racist component of their constituency, with the result that the Republicans picked them up by offering them what they wanted.

Those racist southern Democrats have been voting Republican for the past fifty years. Folks not attempting to engage in conversational sleight of hand might be inclined to call them Republicans at this point.

You should listen to your own advice. Asking questions about off-topic discussions, and then criticizing someone for responding to those off-topic points, is illogical.:!blank: Oh yeah, no, those racist Democrats still hold the Democrat ideology to heart, they just are more racist then they are Democrat.

Ray9

01-30-2010, 06:30 PM

There may be some on the left who are truly not racists. My guess is that the majority of them are racists but their racism is a more subtle racism. It's a kinder, gentler racism that seeks to rehabilitate what they believe to be the inferior race with remedies that include affimative action and social welfare. They believe their fight is the good fight and so they manipulate, guide and control the affected race by creating a system that results in multi-generational dependance on government handouts. By doing this they instill fear into the minds of the affected that they will lose their manna from heaven should they stray from the party that provides it. You see it's all for their own good. But it's still racism.

firebee

01-30-2010, 07:11 PM

You should listen to your own advice. Asking questions about off-topic discussions, and then criticizing someone for responding to those off-topic points, is illogical.:!blank:

What in the world does this have to do with what I said?

Oh yeah, no, those racist Democrats still hold the Democrat ideology to heart, they just are more racist then they are Democrat.

They vote Republican and identify as Republicans because they feel that their interests are being served by the Republican party. They do not vote Democrat and they hold the Democrats in contempt because the Democrats do not serve their interests anymore. Calling these people "Democrats" stems either from utter fantasy or from an attempt (at this point vain and fairly humorous) to blow smoke up our asses.

It is getting, shall we say, somewhat tiresome.

LaoTzu

01-30-2010, 07:18 PM

My guess is that the majority of [Democrats] are racists

This is patently rediculous.

jm123

01-30-2010, 08:33 PM

They vote Republican and identify as Republicans because they feel that their interests are being served by the Republican party. They do not vote Democrat and they hold the Democrats in contempt because the Democrats do not serve their interests anymore. Calling these people "Democrats" stems either from utter fantasy or from an attempt (at this point vain and fairly humorous) to blow smoke up our asses.

It is getting, shall we say, somewhat tiresome.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Only in the 1980s did more white Southerners self-identify as Republicans than as Democrats, and only in the mid-1990s did Republicans win most Southern House seats and become competitive in most state legislatures. So if the GOP's strength in the South only recently reached its zenith, and if its appeal were primarily racial in nature, then the white Southern electorate (or at least most of it) would have to be as racist as ever. But surely one of the most important events in Southern political history is the long-term decline of racism among whites. The fact that these (and many other) books suggest otherwise shows that the myth is ultimately based on a demonization not of the GOP but of Southerners, who are indeed assumed to have Confederate flags in their hearts if not on their pickups. This view lends The Rise of Southern Republicans a schizophrenic nature: it charts numerous changes in the South, but its organizing categories are predicated on the unsustainable assumption that racial views remain intact.

LaoTzu

01-30-2010, 08:44 PM

It's not demonization when the GOP itself is apologising for it's past use of racism as a political tool.

They win now from Guns, God and Gays... hoo-ray.

Point taken though.

jm123

01-31-2010, 12:03 AM

It's not demonization when the GOP itself is apologising for it's past use of racism as a political tool.

They win now from Guns, God and Gays... hoo-ray.

Point taken though.

Hey it least the GOP apologized. There has never been an apology by the Democrats for their support of slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynching, KKK, Segregation, and the lack of unified support for the civil rights movement. I will give you that North Carolina Democrats did finally apologize for killing dozens of blacks in 1898 after an investigation found them to be the directly responsible for the race riots.To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and only after 100+ years.

larkin

01-31-2010, 03:33 AM

Hey it least the GOP apologized. There has never been an apology by the Democrats for their support of slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynching, KKK, Segregation, and the lack of unified support for the civil rights movement. I will give you that North Carolina Democrats did finally apologize for killing dozens of blacks in 1898 after an investigation found them to be the directly responsible for the race riots.To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and only after 100+ years.

All I see is excuses for something that's still happening. Not one person has disavowed the active racism - not poorly worded or plain dumb statements - yet.

The President has exposed himself as a guy … over and over and over again … who has a deep-seated hatred for white people … or the white culture…. I don't know what it is.

Who do you imagine this quote appeals to, and why? And what the fuck is white culture?

kepstein8888

01-31-2010, 05:30 AM

Who do you imagine this quote appeals to...

A lot of people. I have relatives who think everything is a conspiracy against the white man, and every black person (or half-black person) is in on it. They seem to think all blacks are diabolical geniuses and a bunch of dumb porch monkeys at the same time...and don't seem to see the contradiction in that thinking. Funny to listen to, but also disturbing.

jm123

01-31-2010, 10:32 AM

All I see is excuses for something that's still happening. Not one person has disavowed the active racism - not poorly worded or plain dumb statements - yet.

Who do you imagine this quote appeals to, and why? And what the fuck is white culture?

I agree not one prominent Republican or Democrat has apologized for modern racism. If you are saying that I have not disavowed the active racism, even though I am not a Republican.... I disavow the racism and hate of the right wing media personalities, and that would be why I don't watch or listen to them.

I also agree that the Republicans have a much worse modern history. However, the Democrats have a much bloodier history, even if it is 50 years removed. When one of the parties wake up, and make this an actual priority, they will win the vast majority of American hearts.

(This is not a defense for Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or their brand of hatred I personally find that crap unacceptable, from anyone, including the president.)

As far as the quote when was it said? If it was around the time Obama's friend was arrested by the highly decorated white officer, whose record is impeccable, and who teaches racial tolerance classes, do you recall what Obama said? He knee jerked before he knew the facts, and said the police acted stupidly in arresting his friend.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

“There’s a long history in this country of African-Americans being stopped disproportionately by the police,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s a sign of how race remains a factor in this society.”.......Mr. Obama paused, then said, “Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.”......“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that,” Mr. Obama continued. “But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by police disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

The only way race was involved in that incident, was that a black person was acting unacceptable towards a white police officer and got arrested for disorderly conduct. Obama never came out and apologized to his employee in public, for the very public criticism he made. If he had, I probably would be voting for him in the next election just for taking responsibility for inflaming racial disharmony.

boldbidder

01-31-2010, 12:07 PM

It's a kinder, gentler racism that seeks to rehabilitate what they believe to be the inferior race with remedies that include affimative action and social welfare.

Let's play a game Ray. I'll give you a starting nest egg of $100 and myself $1000. Each year I will pay you 0.5% interest on your money and myself I'll pay 12%. We'll do this for say 10 years, at the end of which you will have a lil over $105 and I will have a hair over $3100. Seeing the need for altruism I 'level' the playing field and pay you the same interest rate as myself.

I'll now sit back and patiently wait another 20 years for you to catch up................................

Wow....great job Ray, you've now got $1,014.....however, I'm sitting on tidy sum of $9,646. Why can't you catch up, Ray!?!?!? You have the same access to everything that I do, good god you must be inferior in some way, because obviously thats the only plausible explanation.

Ray9

01-31-2010, 01:01 PM

You have the same access to everything that I do, good god you must be inferior in some way, because obviously thats the only plausible explanation.

Let's try this with lab mice. The mice must negotiate a maze and activate three levers to get a reward. There are two kinds of mice, black and white. The lab assitants arbitrarily determine that the black mice don't perform as well as the white mice so they provide them with a reward after activating only one lever. The white mice benefit from learning because they must use more effort and ingenuity to get the reward. The black mice benefit because they get the reward earlier but they learn only that their easier reward is the result of the arbitrary decision of the lab assistants. Because the white mice have used hard work and thought to succeed they become independant and progress rapidly to other more complex successes. The black mice never advance beyond their dependence of the lab assistants because they see no need to since they get their reward without trying any harder than neccessary. The white mice eventually escape the lab and become free while the black mice remain in the lab without even trying to get free because they are satisfied with their easy reward.

boldbidder

01-31-2010, 04:03 PM

Let's try this with lab mice. The mice must negotiate a maze and activate three levers to get a reward. There are two kinds of mice, black and white. The lab assitants arbitrarily determine that the black mice don't perform as well as the white mice so they provide them with a reward after activating only one lever. The white mice benefit from learning because they must use more effort and ingenuity to get the reward. The black mice benefit because they get the reward earlier but they learn only that their easier reward is the result of the arbitrary decision of the lab assistants. Because the white mice have used hard work and thought to succeed they become independant and progress rapidly to other more complex successes. The black mice never advance beyond their dependence of the lab assistants because they see no need to since they get their reward without trying any harder than neccessary. The white mice eventually escape the lab and become free while the black mice remain in the lab without even trying to get free because they are satisfied with their easy reward.

Poor example, your experiment starts with everyone with the same resources which in no way mirrors reality. In order to properly account for inherit advantages of historically being paler in America you'd have to remove the left hind leg of the black mice as well as blind them in their right eye. Then your experiment would have some merit. Because certainly on Sept 23, 1862 everyone started with the exact same resources as everyone else.

jm123

01-31-2010, 04:51 PM

Poor example, your experiment starts with everyone with the same resources which in no way mirrors reality. In order to properly account for inherit advantages of historically being paler in America you'd have to remove the left hind leg of the black mice as well as blind them in their right eye. Then your experiment would have some merit. Because certainly on Sept 23, 1862 everyone started with the exact same resources as everyone else.

I understand and agree with your point. Our society has done a very poor job of providing education, and resources to the poor of all races. Their are a lot of ignorant people on both sides that seem to think there is some easy answer to this serious issue.

The origins of where the races in our country came from, does need to be remembered. Most whites came from Europe, and had the resources to pay for their transportation to America, and also had a desire for a better life. They consciously chose to make the journey in an attempt to improve their quality of life. While slaves were captured and transported to America. They were displaced and taken advantage of by primarily rich southerners. Most Blacks have had a serious disadvantage fitting into a society they did not widely contribute to, prior to the last 150 years, or made a conscious decision to be in. Since that period began, our country has not found/desired an adequate way to reconcile these cultural differences. I have not really seen this fact acknowledged, our discussed in politics.

The sad thing is, that our country did more for the Japanese after WW2, then we have done for our own countrymen. Our policies have been to reach out and help everyone else, when we have serious and inherent problems in our own country.

Ray9

01-31-2010, 05:55 PM

In order to properly account for inherit advantages of historically being paler in America you'd have to remove the left hind leg of the black mice as well as blind them in their right eye.

Reggie, I'm speaking in the context of the solution to the problem actually exacerbating the problem and creating a greater problem. And I'm sure you know that the complexities of this problem go much deeper than most people realize.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holiman

01-31-2010, 07:40 PM

Ray as usual your incorrect, these problems have more to do with culture and family than goverment. This entire country needs a change in culture desperately.

Grimstad

01-31-2010, 09:04 PM

Anyone who says they are not racist is lying, even if it's only to themself. However that doesn't necessarily make them A Racist. Big difference. We tend to stick with our own kind. That doesn't mean we have to.
Statistically speaking, no matter what color you may be, about half your friends should be white, 1 or 2 in 10 should be black, a similar number should be asian, and so on and so on. Hopefully you get my point.
Chris spoke honestly. Yes he is racist, just like all of us. Whether what he said is a negative or not depends on what you want to read into it.

Pachystima

02-01-2010, 06:41 AM

Anyone who says they are not racist is lying, even if it's only to themself. .

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but---

From Merriam-Webster online:
Racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

If one accepts the dictionary definition of racism then I submit that there are many people who are not racist. There is a big difference between being aware of race and being racist. Being aware of the differences between genders does not make one sexist nor does being aware of homosexuals make one homophobic.

I suppose if one wants to torture the definition of racism enough, one could claim that everyone is, in fact, racist. But, in the real world there are many people who do not meet the accepted definition of racist and the younger a person is, the less likely they are to meet it.

hubcap

02-01-2010, 03:55 PM

If I recall correctly, Obama's team used Obama's race as an issue during the campaign in much the same manner that Hillary Clinton's team used the fact that she was female. I believe that Michelle Obama's thesis was race oriented, and there were even peripheral jabs made by the Obama campaign suggesting some race related issues with the Hillary campaign. It has been suggested by many that because someone opposes Obama's agenda they do so on the basis of race.

It seems to me that Obama's campaign used race to their advantage when possible, and as a defensive mechanism when they believed it was to their advantage.

I believe that politicians tend to use anything to their advantage they possibly can, and to suggest that the left is color-blind while the right is made up of racists is totally disingenuous.

Lucid

02-01-2010, 06:44 PM

Ask yourself this question: Did you vote for President Obama because of the color of his skin?? It never entered your mind?? No, 'it is about time a black person is in the White House?'

If you answer any of these questions yes, then you made a decision based on his race. You did not vote for the other candidate because you preferred the color of Obama's skin. Doesn't make you bad, just be honest with yourself and others.

Did you, Mader, vote against Obama because of the color of his skin? It never entered your mind? No, 'a black person shouldn't be in the White House'?

If you answer any of these questions yes, then you made a decision based on his race. If you answer any of these questions no, then I have to wonder why you'd assume that the majority of people who voted for Obama did so because of the color of his skin if you don't think that the majority of those who voted for McCain did so based on the color of his skin.

There may be some on the left who are truly not racists. My guess is that the majority of them are racists but their racism is a more subtle racism. It's a kinder, gentler racism that seeks to rehabilitate what they believe to be the inferior race with remedies that include affimative action and social welfare. They believe their fight is the good fight and so they manipulate, guide and control the affected race by creating a system that results in multi-generational dependance on government handouts. By doing this they instill fear into the minds of the affected that they will lose their manna from heaven should they stray from the party that provides it. You see it's all for their own good. But it's still racism.

My guess is that you have rarely actually spoken with a liberal and that you are so biased against liberal ideals that it has made you lose sight of all rationality when it comes to issues such as these.

Many conservatives are racist, but that by no means indicates that all or even most conservatives are racist. The same is true of liberals, of independents, and of those who are completely unconcerned with politics. These accusations say more about you than they do about any particular political ideology or the people who adhere to them.

Ray9

02-01-2010, 07:11 PM

Lucid, is your belief system so set in stone that you reject any possibility that racism can exist on the left? If this is true then you and others are in denial. I have never stated that racism has not and does not exist on the right but when I confront true believers from the left with their own homegrown racism all hell breaks loose. I know my side is no angel but your side is built on a very fragile house of cards. If you take away the smoke and mirrors the whole thing collapses. History is not going to be kind to these failed racist experiments that have been going on for fifty years.

Lucid

02-01-2010, 07:58 PM

Lucid, is your belief system so set in stone that you reject any possibility that racism can exist on the left?

Are you reading the posts to which you are responding?

Many conservatives are racist, but that by no means indicates that all or even most conservatives are racist. The same is true of liberals, of independents, and of those who are completely unconcerned with politics.

Is your reasoning with regard to racism and political affiliation as thorough and sound as your reasoning with regard to my possible rejection of the idea that racism can exist on the left?

Is this a problem with your reading comprehension, or with cognitive bias? How on earth did you take my post to mean exactly the opposite of what it said?

To make sure that everyone is on the same page, allow me to make my point in a way which will hopefully be much easier for everyone to understand.

There are racist conservatives. However, this does not indicate that all - or even most - conservatives are racists.
There are racist liberals. However, this does not indicate that all - or even most - liberals are racists.
There are racist independents. However, this does not indicate that all - or even most - independents are racists.
There are racists who don't care for politics in the least and have no political affiliation. However, this does not indicate that all - or even most - people who don't care for politics in the least and have no political affiliation are racists.

To say that all members, most members or no members of any of the groups listed above are racists says more about the person making such a ridiculous statement than it does about the members of said groups, or the groups themselves. Just as one can tell quite a bit more about a person who maintains that the sky is magenta from the fact that he would make such a claim than this statement can tell one about the color of the sky.

Is this, in any way, unclear?

jm123

02-01-2010, 09:26 PM

Just as one can tell quite a bit more about a person who maintains that the sky is magenta from the fact that he would make such a claim than this statement can tell one about the color of the sky.

Is this, in any way, unclear?

So now you have a problem with colorblind people?

Man you liberals sure have a lot of hate.:cheesy:

Ray9

02-01-2010, 09:26 PM

To say that all members, most members or no members of any of the groups listed above are racists says more about the person making such a ridiculous statement than it does about the members of said groups, or the groups themselves. Just as one can tell quite a bit more about a person who maintains that the sky is magenta from the fact that he would make such a claim than this statement can tell one about the color of the sky.

Well, that sounds a lot like attacking the messenger because the message isn't good news. Mathews pulled the race issue out of his ass after Obama's sotus because he thought it could counter the effects of the loss of public confidence displayed by the disasterous Massachussetts special election.

LaoTzu

02-02-2010, 08:21 AM

Brown won in Mass. because he ran down the middle, and identified with independents. There was no rebuke. This is just wishful thinking, and your Masters attempts to energize the GOP base. It's working, obviously. So good for them.

But it still doesn't make it a fact...

That you see such confluence of politics, the media and racism... it must be hard to be you. I couldn't handle all those specious connections running around my head 24/7.

Mader

02-02-2010, 06:51 PM

So if I did not vote for Obama, I must be a racist, right. Being aware of race does not make you a racist. In fact, my experience is that the closer we live together and work together, the more comfortable we become with the differences between people and the similarities. Oh, no differences, go to church on Sunday.

Or, maybe, I listened to his words and smelled a skunk. Obama spoke as a lawyer, what is left out is as important as what is said. He still speaks as a lawyer, mincing words, sort of the 'definition of is'. Lawyers are not to be trusted, they have no allegience except to themselves and their (temporary) client.

Hope? Change? What exactly does that mean. Closing GITMO? really, grow up, these people want to kill each and every once of us. GED classes will not turn them around. We have to spend money we don't have in order to make money!?!?!?!? Um, if you are talking advertising, maybe. In the rest of the world, absolutely not. And you younger folks are going to suffer for this Obama and his staff handle money like my late husband and his family, stupidly with no thought for tomorrow.

LaoTzu

02-02-2010, 10:56 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Obama was talking basketball because he's black...

:laugh:

sunlover

02-03-2010, 07:13 PM

LaoTzu

02-03-2010, 07:23 PM

Did either of you watch his Q&A with House Republicans (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

You can still disagree with him... but he's definitely not elitist...

Lucid

02-03-2010, 07:53 PM

So if I did not vote for Obama, I must be a racist, right. Being aware of race does not make you a racist.

.....

Or, maybe, I listened to his words and smelled a skunk.

Yes, that's actually my point. Whether you voted for or against Obama, it's illogical to assume - as it appeared you were doing - that the majority voted as they did because of his race.

So do I think you're a racist because you didn't vote for the guy? Of course not.
Should you assume that I voted for him because he's black any more than you voted against him because he's black? I'd say no and that it would be just as wrong of you to do so as it would of me to assume you're a racist because of your McCain vote.

Ray9

02-14-2010, 06:00 AM

Racism on the left is much more widespread and and institutionalized than racism on the right. The single most egregious example of institutionalized racism is Affirmative Action. It is a tacit admission by the left that they believe blacks are intellectually incapable of competing with most of the rest of the world. Affirmative Action was implemented soley for blacks because in spite of the fact that the Italians, the Irish, The chinese, the Japanese, the Jews and many other so called races suffered severe discrimination and overcame it, they believed blacks are genetically inferior and not up to the task of organizing and solving problems on their own. Of course Affirmative Action is a dismal failure just like most of the rest of the central planning that came out of Johnson's "Great Society". Because leftist racism is considered to be a "nice" racism it is presented to the world as a remedy not an admission of failure. Affirmative Action cannot not be explained as anything other other than leftist racism.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 06:14 AM

but they can't compete, obviously

pip

02-14-2010, 06:18 AM

Really Ray....
Try pulling at those straws a bit more - you never know what you might find attached to them! :laugh:

How would you explain me?
I am 'on the left' as you would say, but I belive that 'Affirmitive Action', 'Political Correctness' and all manner of social pussyfooting are a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
How does that reconcile with this deep-seated belief of yours that everyone from the left is a default racist?

And would you be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us as to precicely what this has to do with left vs. right?
Last time I checked that was a description of a preferred means of economic disribution, and had nothing at all to do with dickheads who think no-one should have to be offended at anything ever.
Perhaps your ire might be more productivley directed toward those who deserve it?

ElstonGunn

02-14-2010, 10:28 AM

The single most egregious example of institutionalized racism is Affirmative Action. It is a tacit admission by the left that they believe blacks are intellectually incapable of competing with most of the rest of the world.

No, that's not the idea behind affirmative action. It's the admission that the historical mistreatment of blacks has effects that have been carried into the present. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly legal to treat blacks as second-class citizens, and the effects of those inequalities don't disappear overnight. There's no point in considering it a fair race if my starting line is fifty yards ahead of the other person's. I'd happily give up some of my unearned advantages to help him out. I guess I don't see the virtue in being selfish about the accidents-of-birth that have benefited me personally, as if having been born to parents who have plenty of money is somehow my own accomplishment.

So if you claim that liberals think that women and minorities are somehow inferior and that's why they're under-represented in positions of power and influence, what is the conservative explanation for it? Why are there so few female senators and black CEOs?

Ray9

02-14-2010, 12:59 PM

It's the admission that the historical mistreatment of blacks has effects that have been carried into the present.

That's the standard argument but it's unconvincing. It would be like racially adjusting the Irish for the potato famine or the Jews for the Holocaust. You don't see that happening because it makes no sense. You see it happening for blacks because of decisions made by a small group of left wing racists who are true believers in the myth that blacks cannot compete on level ground.

larkin

02-14-2010, 01:27 PM

That's the standard argument but it's unconvincing. It would be like racially adjusting the Irish for the potato famine

First of all, Irish or Jewish is not a race. FYI.

And not to take anything away from some of the discrimination the Irish and many other ethnic groups have suffered, but casually comparing it to the fact that the United States was built off slave labor is a pretty significant and purposeful underestimation of the particular debt the U.S. owes to African Americans. To say nothing of being shockingly self-absorbed, as usual. If you want to continue to pretend it didn't happen, to continue to live in a vacuum or a bubble of your own grievances, fine, but the rest of this country will need to choose a different path. We don't have the luxury of just choosing to ignore what happened and hoping it will go away. It doesn't work - not for societies any more than it does for people in their own lives.

Probably why all those history professors are usually such terrible liberals, right? Because they're so bad at ignoring all those things, they're more aware than anyone of what came before.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 01:40 PM

larkin, you make me lol

we owe people who live a Third World existence without Western help? modern African Americans i mean...THEY aren't slaves, we owe them nothing at all

SelfMadeBum

02-14-2010, 01:43 PM

You must be right. They're not slaves, so their history has had no impact whatsoever and should be waved with haste.

larkin

02-14-2010, 02:10 PM

Let me be clear. Of course some conservatives are of the opinion that state intervention isn't the best way to deal with this and often has clear unintended consequences. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view and in part I agree. (Although I will say I think "affirmative action" is a term that's often misused or is outright lied about by some - quotas are illegal and have been for years.) I have no problem with this; reasonable people can disagree about how to address issues in this country, and I certainly don't have the answers on exactly how to do it.

Who I have a problem with are people who want to pretend the only problem is affirmative action itself. Which is their way of refusing to acknowledge there's any issue at all, refusing to confront the real residual problems our history has left us that we still haven't dealt with.

larkin, you make me lol

we owe people who live a Third World existence without Western help? modern African Americans i mean...THEY aren't slaves, we owe them nothing at all

Perfect example of a mindset that chooses to ignore the real problems we face.

I mean, up until the 1990s people of many different ethnic groups couldn't get a mortgage in certain sections of major metropolitan areas (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Anyone who's been to a southern city ever wondered why all the black people tend to live across a major highway or river from the white people? And no, the answer is not just self-segregation, as comforting to you personally I'm sure that answer might be.

But no, you don't wonder, these people always choose ignorance or easy answers, they just say it's their fucking problem without acknowledging all the ways it's actually everyone's problem. And I'm not even talking about blame.

But hey, glad you can laugh about it.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 02:22 PM

there's nothing wrong with free association, people tend to like people similar to themselves, so you think that just because you dislike that, that everyone should be forced to conform to YOUR ideals? the media already pushes that, so i guess you should feel comforted in your "righteousness" or something...oh, and about the mortgage, yeah, look at what happened when anyone could get a mortgage, even when they didn't have a job, it destroyed the credit system of the country...if i'm a bank or a business, i don't OWE you ANYTHING, i should be able to refuse service to you if i want to, the object or service that i'm selling doesn't belong to you unless BOTH of us agree to it, thus i should be able to exclude whoever the hell i want from buying something that i own if i want to, if that's such a bad model, i guess my business competitor will pick up the business that i'm refusing and if i'm too discriminatory, they should run me out of business, RIGHT? :)

larkin

02-14-2010, 02:33 PM

Who would have guessed that you would a.) start by claiming it's all just self-segregation; b.) paradoxically switch to defending the businesses that practiced redlining, an odious Jim Crow practice made illegal in 1968 (but informally practiced through the 90s); and c.) change the argument entirely to talking about what a mistake it was to take state action to promote minority home ownership, when I explicitly stated that you can acknowledge all of these residual problems without advocating for government intervention? (Although you and Ray9 both seem to opt for the head in the sand approach personally.)

It kind of seems like any old justification will do, doesn't it?

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 02:51 PM

a: i didn't claim it was all self-segregation, b: businesses shouldn't be forced to do business with people they don't want to (think of it this way, if someone owns a restaurant and doesn't want to give me entry, i have no more right to enter, than someone who crashes a house party that they aren't invited to) c: the state shouldn't have to take action to give advantages to certain groups, or moderate private actions, that's not why it exists, and i didn't change the argument

larkin

02-14-2010, 03:19 PM

a.) yep, I'm sorry, you used the term free association - clearly so different; b.) businesses that don't want to business with people because of their race is illegal, your argument has not been acceptable since Jim Crow and the Greensboro lunch counter protests; and c.) your views on possible state intervention are totally irrelevant. Y'know, changing the argument.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 03:24 PM

a: is a matter of semantics, b: isn't acceptable? shouldn't all ideas be acceptable to ponder, or are some people's sensibilities so easy to offend that i'm not ALLOWED to think or say certain things, or have a viewpoint in opposition to theirs?, c: not really, it's a central issue

Storm

02-14-2010, 03:30 PM

You have the right to think whatever you want. You do not have the right to do whatever you want. Nor do you have the right to be free from criticism for your ideas.

Amph was referring to "unacceptable" legally. She was also referring to an act and not a thought. You are free to think whatever racist thing you want. You aren't free to open a business and discriminate based on race. Nor does anyone have to consider your racist thoughts as socially acceptable.

larkin

02-14-2010, 03:33 PM

Yes, it is a matter of semantics, isn't it? That was my point too.

Very moving tribute to the freedom of ideas. Of course you could make the argument that going back to slavery would be an economic boon and an awesome choice for the future of the country. And I would get to say that not only do I find that morally unacceptable, the country has found it morally unacceptable, as reflected by our system of laws.

You can claim state intervention is a central issue all you like. Again: there's no reason why someone couldn't acknowledge that there are residual issues with race in this country without advocating for state intervention. Again, you just personally prefer to deny it entirely.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 03:49 PM

jm123

02-14-2010, 04:19 PM

State intervention to prevent race entering into the equation is fine in most moral books. While a business has a right to deny services to anyone they chose it has to be for the right reasons. To simply deny someone because of the color of their skin, a disability, ethnicity, accent, etc, and etc encourages hate. It breeds an environment for civil unrest. Our country was founded on the principle that all men(and now women) are created equal, and laws protecting this principle should be encouraged.

On the other hand, I live in a state where scholarships are based on academic achievement. The standard for select minorities is 10-15% lower than for other individuals. This type of rule contradicts all of the anti-segregation laws. They specifically give an undeserved privilege to a select population. I can agree with the basic principle behind these rules, reparation. However, now that we have had a minority president I feel it is time to revisit many of these rules. The president is the highest publicly elected position, and if a minority can achieve said position. It is time to make an exit plan and phase out these rules over the next 20-50 years.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 04:25 PM

larkin

02-14-2010, 04:27 PM

Storm, EVERYONE should have the right to mutual free association, to say anything less is to say that you believe that you should make the decision for people as to who they decide to associate with, and essentially wish to take that power, and as i would argue, a right, away from them if it doesn't mesh with your idea of acceptable. I'm fine with criticism, but i must make the point that i believe that anyone who disagrees with my very reasonable points, is talking out of both sides of their mouth, regarding rights and freedoms.

Consistent confusion between personal rights and laws regulating businesses and their practices.

@larkin..., of course i don't condone slavery...why must you think in such a simplistic way that if you're FOR something, and i'm NOT, that i must automatically be FOR everything that you're against?

There's been some difficulty grasping parallels so I'm reluctant to make it, but here goes: if you argued that you didn't personally condone blackmail, but the state didn't have the right to regulate the business practice, I'd similarly claim that not only is that argument fundamentally incorrect, it's morally unacceptable.

You explicitly argued in defense of Jim Crow laws. Same principle applies.

state intervention is the BIGGEST issue regarding race in the US

Even if one believed state intervention were a problem, claiming that it's the BIGGEST is, again, a dramatic underestimation of, and purposeful ignorance of, race relations in the United States. You can't deal with a problem as long as people choose to remain so significantly in denial.

freeeekyyy

02-14-2010, 04:30 PM

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 04:40 PM

Consistent confusion between personal rights and laws regulating businesses and their practices.

There's been some difficulty grasping parallels so I'm reluctant to make it, but here goes: if you argued that you didn't personally condone blackmail, but the state didn't have the right to regulate the business practice, I'd similarly claim that not only is that argument fundamentally incorrect, it's morally unacceptable.

You explicitly argued in defense of Jim Crow. Same principle applies.

Even if one believed state intervention were a problem, claiming that it's the BIGGEST is, again, a dramatic underestimation of, and purposeful ignorance of, race relations in the United States. You can't deal with a problem as long as people choose to remain so significantly in denial.

Hum, businesses aren't magical abstractions, they're groups of PEOPLE working to make money. And just because i don't attack something i disagree with on a personal level doesn't mean that i support it...i don't have to be an activist on every issue i care about. K? K.
I'm in favour of segregation based only upon the mutual freedom of association. You may argue that that may make races less likely to interact, and thus is the same thing as state-forced segregation. No, it's fucking not. If that's what people want, then what right does the state have to infringe on those rights?

State intervention IS the biggest problem in this country, as whites are in denial about history of not only their ancestors, but the history of this nation. And besides the denial designed and promoted to bring whitey down a notch or two, there's the denial of obvious differences between races (meaning intelligence and cultural differences if you didn't get the meaning of that).

Storm

02-14-2010, 04:40 PM

Storm, EVERYONE should have the right to mutual free association

Businesses aren't people.

jm123

02-14-2010, 04:48 PM

it's not race-blind though, it's affirmative action and quotas that discriminate against whites and asians...i would be 100% fine with race-blind policies in American society, because i know it would lead to an amicable parting of ways between the races, but that's not what's happening

A question have you ever been personally impacted by affirmative action?

I have had a scholarship that was promised to me, given to a minority with a significantly lower score because it was a "better fit" for that scholarship (community action scholarship). While this did piss me off, I also have the comfort in knowing that when I am denied a position it is 99.9% of the time because there was a better qualified candidate. The minority individual does not have that inner peace. They have to question if they lost, or even obtained that position just because they are a minority. The goal of affirmative action is an attempt to balance out the wrongs of the world. To be blind to the fact that there are ignorant jack-azzes that still attempt to help their own out, is quite naive.

The right of freedom to associate is reserved for individuals. Business are granted special exemptions that individuals will never posses. In return they are heavily regulated by the government for those privileges, and for the protection of our citizens.

ArtistTyrant

02-14-2010, 04:52 PM

well i dislike heavy regulation, i don't think that's why the state exists, it exists to enforce contracts, provide a few public services, and keep us safe from foreign nations and groups that seek to do us harm :)

firebee

02-14-2010, 06:52 PM

State intervention IS the biggest problem in this country, as whites are in denial about history of not only their ancestors, but the history of this nation.

Are you stating that state intervention has been brought about by ignorance of history, or that state intervention is aimed at promoting ignorance of history? And either way -- why do you contend that white people specifically are afflicted by such ignorance, and why is this material to the question of how people of other races should be treated?

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 06:55 PM ----------

modern African Americans i mean...THEY aren't slaves, we owe them nothing at all

Also, how do you reconcile this statement with your assertion that there is some important historical context that is being suppressed, with regards to the race question? Does history only matter to white people or something?

Ray9

02-14-2010, 07:01 PM

Affimative action was put into place for purely racist reasons. It's advertised function was to repair inequities that its proponents regarded as being brought about by historical and institutionalized discrimination against mainly blacks. But the true basis of Affirmative action policies was the growing belief that blacks were not genetically equipped to compete with other races in the academic arena. Among the early observations of university professors was that blacks by and large were unable to grasp abstract concepts that require higher intelligence. The real reason is most likely more cultural than intellectual. Blacks, being the recipients of all the government love born out of the "Great Society", have become entrapped in a cycle of welfare dependence, illegitimate childbirth and chronic incarceration. Of course to voice anything like this today would be a career ender. So affimative action's actual purpose today is to lower the bar for a selected minority to force its introduction and assimilation into the mainstream. In other words its supporters believe they must hammer a square peg into a round hole because nature prevents it from happening any other way. It's also used as a very effective tool to prevent other minorities, particualarly Asians, from moving to quickly to the front of the line even though they deserve to be there based on achievement and effort. The left wing, racist policies of Affirmative Action have been more harmful than helpful to blacks but the moral and monetary corruption behind it keeps it in place and will for some time to come. Two people who agree with most of what I say are Ward Connerly and Dr. Thomas Sowell.

firebee

02-14-2010, 07:13 PM

Racism on the left is much more widespread and and institutionalized than racism on the right. The single most egregious example of institutionalized racism is Affirmative Action. It is a tacit admission by the left that they believe blacks are intellectually incapable of competing with most of the rest of the world.
...

Affimative action was put into place for purely racist reasons. It's advertised function was to repair inequities that its proponents regarded as being brought about by historical and institutionalized discrimination against mainly blacks. But the true basis of Affirmative action policies was the growing belief that blacks were not genetically equipped to compete with other races in the academic arena.
...

Wow, two almost identical posts and not a source between them. D'ye think that if you repeat a thing over and over it becomes truthier each time or something?

What basis do you have to claim that the purpose of affirmative action is not in fact to remedy the effects of historical and institutionalized discrimination?

stasis

02-15-2010, 01:01 PM

Businesses aren't people.
Legally, they are (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). And when you pass your bar exam I expect you to fix that.

LaoTzu

02-16-2010, 08:21 AM

What basis do you have to claim that the purpose of affirmative action is not in fact to remedy the effects of historical and institutionalized discrimination?

An example of what is probably the main contributing factors to the 'racist' gap we see today.... HERE (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Returning World War II veterans spurred a population and housing boom driven in part by benefits from the GI bill. The economic demands of the post-war boom and the burgeoning Civil Rights movement led to conflicts over discrimination in housing, jobs and education. The Federal Housing Administration, which instituted policies that reinforced patterns of segregation, routinely denied low-interest loans to non-whites.The legacy of post-war economic discrimination contributed to the wealth gap between whites and non-whites that we see today. One of the most important factors that contributed to the wealth gap was the federal housing policy. This policy endorsed redlining and discrimination in sales, financing and homeowners insurance, is reflected in the unequal rates of home ownership even today.

So yes, there is a price being paid for past racism. I agree with Jm123 that there needs to be an end to it set for sometime in the future. This can't go on forever.

Holiman

02-16-2010, 02:39 PM

While I agree with Ray and others here that affirmative action has long outlived its usefulness our agrement ends there. The concept that I have alot of problem with is that those who instituted AA were racist.

I challenge those that do think this way (looking at you here Ray) to also come forward and state that the founding of Isreal was anti-semetic. The creation of Indian reservations and later the Indian Regulatory Gaming act was also discriminatory. Please this is no argument about those being good or bad concepts only if they were examples of deep seated rascism.

Ray9

02-16-2010, 07:32 PM

I challenge those that do think this way (looking at you here Ray) to also come forward and state that the founding of Isreal was anti-semetic. The creation of Indian reservations and later the Indian Regulatory Gaming act was also discriminatory. Please this is no argument about those being good or bad concepts

It's interesting that you bring this up because I have both Jewish and Native American blood in my veins. In fact my doctor once told me the reason I'm so healthy is because I'm so biologically diverse. Since I'm religiously agnostic and I don't gamble I have no opinion on the merits of what you mention. However I do have an opinion on this:

Returning World War II veterans spurred a population and housing boom driven in part by benefits from the GI bill. The economic demands of the post-war boom and the burgeoning Civil Rights movement led to conflicts over discrimination in housing, jobs and education. The Federal Housing Administration, which instituted policies that reinforced patterns of segregation, routinely denied low-interest loans to non-whites.The legacy of post-war economic discrimination contributed to the wealth gap between whites and non-whites that we see today. One of the most important factors that contributed to the wealth gap was the federal housing policy. This policy endorsed redlining and discrimination in sales, financing and homeowners insurance, is reflected in the unequal rates of home ownership even today.

This is exactly what is wrong with Affirmative Action. The only way to rectify those past wrongs would be to specifically identify the individuals responsible for those wrongs and punish them. To punish innocent people born in the future who had no part in those wrongs is patently absurd. It also denies the supposed wronged any merit as individuals and indentifies them only as insignificant components of a group. The Irish, the Italians and the Chinese suffered much the same fate generations earlier than the above mentioned discrimination. The Puritans and the Quakers have a case as well. We can keep going back into history. The odious thinking behind affirmative action is both racist and sexist because it targets one particular race--white--and one particular gender--male--. I truly believe that the motivation behind much of the social engineering going on in America today is blatant racism. The true believers have given up on the ability of the black population to solve its own problems and make its own way and have decided to manipulate history to create an outcome that they don't think will happen any other way.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

larkin

02-16-2010, 08:11 PM

The Irish, the Italians and the Chinese suffered much the same fate generations earlier than the above mentioned discrimination. The Puritans and the Quakers have a case as well.

You're simply delusional to suggest that we're just talking about redlining here - as if that's the only time there's been discrimination against African-Americans in this country - or to compare discrimination against the Irish or Italians in this country, as unfair as it was, to 200+ years of slavery. I don't say this to suggest any state-sponsored remedy, simply to add some reasonable perspective to your ongoing minimization of the real context of race relations in this country.

Reasonable people can disagree on the limits of affirmative action, or whether or not it's run its course. It's mostly a symbolic argument at this point anyway - again, quotas have been illegal in this country for years. So the people most willing to pretend it's such an overwhelming problem, that it's the major issue in race relations today, are just looking to nurse their limitless number of grievances about how much it sucks in this country to be white and male. I mean, talk about whining - it's honestly embarrassing.

LaoTzu

02-16-2010, 08:50 PM

The only way to rectify those past wrongs would be to specifically identify the individuals responsible for those wrongs and punish them. To punish innocent people born in the future who had no part in those wrongs is patently absurd.

I have some issues with this...
#1. The only way to rectify a situation is to punish someone? How does that help people?
#2. Why is AA considered a 'punishment'?? Why can it not be considered a public duty... or honorable to give up one's seat for someone who could possibly use it for a higher purpose?

A White person getting passed over is not the same thing as the institutionalized racism of 50 years ago. I mean... the White person can go elsewhere, upgrade, do a number of things to improve his/her lot...
A Black person 50 years ago was still black... no matter what he/she did. They did not have options. And it's led to a huge wealth gap. That wealth gap has led to many of the socio-economic ills that face the Black community to this day.

To think that AA is going to lead to some dramatic decline in the ability of the whole is a clutch at straws.
The idea that it creates an inferiority complex is quite bizarre.
The notion that seeing someone from one's own neighbourhood make good in life doesn't make a difference to a young kid is denying one's own humanity.
Name one employer that hires based on test scores alone, never meeting the prospective employee beforehand.... obviously there are other factors at play than just ability. It's a fact of working life.

It's not a perfect thing. What is?

Ray9

02-16-2010, 08:59 PM

You're simply delusional to suggest that we're just talking about redlining here

Well thanks for not calling me senile.

So the people most willing to pretend it's such an overwhelming problem, that it's the major issue in race relations today, are just looking to nurse their limitless number of grievances about how much it sucks in this country to be white and male. I mean, talk about whining - it's honestly embarrassing.

It's going to suck a lot worse for everyone if this economy doesn't improve. And who's embarrassed? You? It's certainly not me.

ElstonGunn

02-17-2010, 01:08 PM

The only way to rectify those past wrongs would be to specifically identify the individuals responsible for those wrongs and punish them. To punish innocent people born in the future who had no part in those wrongs is patently absurd. It also denies the supposed wronged any merit as individuals and indentifies them only as insignificant components of a group.

It sounds like you're still missing the point. Affirmative action isn't about punishing white males as much as it is about removing their personally unearned advantages over other subgroups of people. Maybe it would help to put the same idea into a context that might make more sense to you.

Suppose you're married and you have some young kids, maybe 4 years old or so. Then suppose I kill you, and I get caught, and I'm punished effectively (by the chair, or whatever method of punishment you'd institute if it were up to you).

Obviously, the fact that I've been punished doesn't bring you back to life, even if justice has been served. So what about your kids' futures? Do you think that they will be just as well-off being raised by a single parent as they would be in a two-parent home, or do you think that your absence will hurt their opportunities in life? (If you don't believe that a stable, heterosexual, two-parent household is the best environment for children to grow up in, then I apologize for associating you with that common conservative belief.)

It's not their fault that you aren't there for them, and it's not yours either, and the person who caused the situation (me) has already been punished, but the fact remains that your kids are in a worse position because someone else did something to an ancestor of theirs (albeit a very close one). Should they have fewer opportunities because they had the unfortunate luck of me making it more difficult for them?

Or can you at least see the point in someone wanting to offer your innocent, unlucky kids the same opportunities as the innocent, lucky kids who were fortunate enough to have both parents?

ArtistTyrant

02-17-2010, 01:17 PM

why punish the group of people that has historically been the intellectuals that create things and run society smoothly? sounds unnatural to me

ElstonGunn

02-17-2010, 01:31 PM

First of all, it's not a punishment.

Secondly, why limit your "brain trust" to white males instead of helping minorities get into it as well?

Thirdly, if white males are so inherently smart, I'm sure they can figure out a way to continue to create things and contribute to society, with or without being born into better circumstances.

Ray9

02-17-2010, 02:05 PM

It sounds like you're still missing the point.

I get the point. The argument that it's not a punishment is the same semantical subterfuge that's always used by central planners. The perpertrators of this line of thinking always see themselves as above the fray. They want to get their hands on the controls and engineer an outcome that they believe is desirable. Of course as with all central planning the devil is in the details of all the unintended consequences that occurr and are ignored. The better part of the machinery of Affirmative Action is rife with racism and sexism against white males. The beaurecrats and central planners who impose these disasters do so with the God-like power they see themselves endowed with and it is accepted with the child-like dependence of the indoctrinated masses as Milton Friedman would put it. It's a racism that's far worse than the normal variety. It's planned racism.

eagleseven

02-17-2010, 02:10 PM

No, that's not the idea behind affirmative action. It's the admission that the historical mistreatment of blacks has effects that have been carried into the present. It wasn't that long ago that it was perfectly legal to treat blacks as second-class citizens, and the effects of those inequalities don't disappear overnight.
Then why do our Universities (especially in California) discriminate against Asians (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

Romance it all you want, affirmative action is about maintaining the proper mix of races.

IrishGuy

02-17-2010, 03:46 PM

You're simply delusional to suggest that we're just talking about redlining here - as if that's the only time there's been discrimination against African-Americans in this country - or to compare discrimination against the Irish or Italians in this country, as unfair as it was, to 200+ years of slavery. I don't say this to suggest any state-sponsored remedy, simply to add some reasonable perspective to your ongoing minimization of the real context of race relations in this country.

Reasonable people can disagree on the limits of affirmative action, or whether or not it's run its course. It's mostly a symbolic argument at this point anyway - again, quotas have been illegal in this country for years. So the people most willing to pretend it's such an overwhelming problem, that it's the major issue in race relations today, are just looking to nurse their limitless number of grievances about how much it sucks in this country to be white and male. I mean, talk about whining - it's honestly embarrassing.

I would just like to add that there were stories about how some Irish immigrants could only find work by doing the jobs that slave-owners did not want their slaves to do (too dangerous to risk an expensive slave). However, if I had to choose between doing a very dangerous job for crappy pay of my own free will or having to not do the job and possibly be whipped for so much as glancing at a white woman I think I would rather have the crappy job.

Bottom line is that you cannot say the discrimination faced by the Irish and African-Americans were equivalent. The Irish were treated like crap for a long time but we were never herded around like cattle in America. Also, Irish were allowed to inter-marry with other other immigrant and non-immigrant whites (even though it may have been looked down upon). The Irish had NINA (No Irish Need Apply) to deal with, but could still work for money and start their own businesses etc., and that was over 150 years ago. African-Americans have not had that luxury very long maybe 30 years (if ever). Discrimination against the Irish was never anywhere near as systemic as the discrimination against African-Americans and thus, the consequences were never quite so severe.

Then why do our Universities (especially in California) discriminate against Asians (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

Romance it all you want, affirmative action is about maintaining the proper mix of races.

You're making an assumption based off of incomplete information. The article notes that the people who did the study were only looking at SAT scores and not extracurricular's.

The data we had is only part of the data that admission deans have access to,” Espenshade said. “If we had access to the full range of info, it could put Asian candidates in a different light. This so-called ‘Asian disadvantage’ does not necessarily mean that Asian applicants are being discriminated against.

ElstonGunn

02-17-2010, 04:38 PM

I get the point. The argument that it's not a punishment is the same semantical subterfuge that's always used by central planners. The perpertrators of this line of thinking always see themselves as above the fray. They want to get their hands on the controls and engineer an outcome that they believe is desirable. Of course as with all central planning the devil is in the details of all the unintended consequences that occurr and are ignored. The better part of the machinery of Affirmative Action is rife with racism and sexism against white males. The beaurecrats and central planners who impose these disasters do so with the God-like power they see themselves endowed with and it is accepted with the child-like dependence of the indoctrinated masses as Milton Friedman would put it. It's a racism that's far worse than the normal variety. It's planned racism.

Could you rephrase that without the talking points, and instead with some support, whether statistical or clear and reasonable explanations of the actions taken by those with whom you disagree? The broad evaluations of why you think they're wrong aren't doing much for me.

Right now, this is all that I'm seeing in your response:

"No, it is punishment." -- Repeating a claim doesn't make it true.

"The people who administer affirmative action see themselves as being outside of the system." -- That's a legitimate idea and I have no problem with crediting you for that. Whether that's bad (or how bad, if you'd prefer it phrased that way), and how or why it should be mitigated or eliminated are other questions.

"Those people want to create a desired outcome." -- What's the alternative in taking any action, regardless of whether it's running an affirmative action program or tying your shoelace?

"There are unintended consequences." -- Give some examples. I can tell you I have six arms if I'm not required to provide proof.

"Affirmative action is discriminatory against white males." -- This is another legitimate point to argue, but arguing and repeating your conclusion are not the same thing.

"The administrators of affirmative action have a lot of power that they don't deserve." -- I'll gladly listen if you want to explain why you think so.

"It's racist." -- You need to make a clear case for your point. Mindless parroting of the same idea over and over does not constitute an argument in favor of it. Either get some data that supports your point, or provide some kind of detailed context for it. Otherwise, you're not going to convince anyone other than yourself that you're right.

Ray9

02-17-2010, 08:17 PM

Either get some data that supports your point, or provide some kind of detailed context for it. Otherwise, you're not going to convince anyone other than yourself that you're right.

Let's start with this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Night Runner

02-17-2010, 08:53 PM

A quick disclaimer: I'm neutral on this issue and it no longer applies to me directly. (I hope.) That said...

Affirmative action isn't about punishing white males as much as it is about removing their personally unearned advantages over other subgroups of people.
I am a white male. What "personally unearned advantages" am I supposed to possess? I never owned slaves, never oppressed any minorities and, as far as I can tell, never got any preferential treatment because of the combination of my epidermis pigmentation and my Y chromosome. Quite the contrary, actually: there are many college scholarships for minorities only, and none specifically designed for white males. Sounds like indirect de facto discrimination. ;)

Can we all agree that the affirmative action program would be far more efficient if it only looked at factors such as income and poverty level, rather than epidermis pigmentation?

LaoTzu

02-17-2010, 09:04 PM

Can we all agree that the affirmative action program would be far more efficient if it only looked at factors such as income and poverty level, rather than epidermis pigmentation?

I would go for this alternative, since it's the economic hardships that we 'central planner' types are most interested in rectifying... and it removes race as a primary issue. I think that too much emphasis on race keeps race an issue that divides people.
It's probable that the programs would still target those people who are already taking advantage of AA; but you'd mix in a few poor white people, and it would necessitate a softening of the stance of people like Ray.

eagleseven

02-17-2010, 10:57 PM

You're making an assumption based off of incomplete information. The article notes that the people who did the study were only looking at SAT scores and not extracurricular's.
Are you suggesting that Whites, on average, have 140 SAT points worth of extracurriculars more than Asians? And that Blacks, on average, have 450 SAT points worth of extracurriculars more than Asians?

Don't make me laugh.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 09:58 PM ----------

I would go for this alternative, since it's the economic hardships that we 'central planner' types are most interested in rectifying... and it removes race as a primary issue. I think that too much emphasis on race keeps race an issue that divides people.
It's probable that the programs would still target those people who are already taking advantage of AA; but you'd mix in a few poor white people, and it would necessitate a softening of the stance of people like Ray.
This wouldn't work, because you still wouldn't have the proper mix of races.

pip

02-18-2010, 02:11 AM

Let's start with this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't disagree with you that affirimative action etc is a bag of crap, but could you possibly cite a source that isn't a tinfoil hat fruitbat blog?

Ither

02-18-2010, 04:56 AM

Can we all agree that the affirmative action program would be far more efficient if it only looked at factors such as income and poverty level, rather than epidermis pigmentation?

This is obviously true, and moral, but implementing it would require that a society recognize that something is amiss that does not only reach back into the historical past.

stasis

02-18-2010, 09:28 AM

I am a white male. What "personally unearned advantages" am I supposed to possess? [...] as far as I can tell, never got any preferential treatment because of the combination of my epidermis pigmentation and my Y chromosome.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It isn't something you'll tend to notice. The normalcy you experience isn't something minorities often have access to. Most significantly, I'd observe, it is the ability to not be racially assessed on a regular basis. Following from this, a broad lack of "otherness" which translates into enjoying greater empathy, forgiveness, and permissiveness from others, and thus comparatively more rapid social acceptance in almost any endeavor in general by default.

Have you ever seen the "I'm tired of all this crap, I just don't want to hear about race anymore" complaint? While I agree with the sentiment, it is still quite the luxury in terms of white privilege as it is actually possible for the white person to be free of conscious racial identity in a general sense today.

Ray9

02-18-2010, 02:18 PM

I don't disagree with you that affirimative action etc is a bag of crap, but could you possibly cite a source that isn't a tinfoil hat fruitbat blog?

It's very difficult to source something like this because people risk their livelihoods if they speak out. Because Affimative Action is not a sociological experiment but a political mechanism to enforce an ideological theory, those who rock the boat in any way chance being ostracized by their peers, losing tenure and being hounded out of town. When the people pushing an idea have control of the incomes of their subordinates it's little wonder that little is said. When preserving your job, your home and your reputation, silence is almost always golden. I would go as far as to say that Affirmative Action and the people who administer it are eerily reminiscent of the the McCarthyist era and HUAC.

IrishGuy

02-18-2010, 02:21 PM

Are you suggesting that Whites, on average, have 140 SAT points worth of extracurriculars more than Asians? And that Blacks, on average, have 450 SAT points worth of extracurriculars more than Asians?

Don't make me laugh.

Extracurriculars? Well, I wouldn't know. How do you convert SAT numbers to extracurriculars? Anyways, my point is that there is more to college admissions than SAT's. Personal statements, extracurriculars, the relevance of those extracurriculars to your proposed major, and family situation (are you 18 and working to support your single mother and younger brother) can all have an influence on whether or not you get into a certain college. Colleges do not want statistical superstars; they want people who can indicate a capacity to function in the real world. They want people who are smart, can work hard, can relate to other people, can adapt to their environment, people who are likely to stay for 4 years and not transfer etc.. SAT's measure reading, writing, and math (SAT's are out of 2400 now and have 3 major sections).

The study openly acknowledged that it lacked a lot of this "soft" information. The truth of the matter is that those "soft" credentials count and count big. You cannot make a valid assumption based off of SAT scores. Admissions officials openly admit all the time to turning away students with high GPAs and test scores because they lacked the soft skills that students with lesser GPA and test scores had.

Night Runner

02-18-2010, 08:23 PM

It isn't something you'll tend to notice. The normalcy you experience isn't something minorities often have access to. Most significantly, I'd observe, it is the ability to not be racially assessed on a regular basis. Following from this, a broad lack of "otherness" which translates into enjoying greater empathy, forgiveness, and permissiveness from others, and thus comparatively more rapid social acceptance in almost any endeavor in general by default.
It's funny that you should mention normalcy. While I may look like any native-born Caucasian-American, my Russian accent reminds people of villains from Cold War movies. :rolleyes: If anything, that adds another twist to the situation: I look like others, and therefore never got any of the epidermis pigmentation-based financial assistance, but I sound like an outsider, which I'm sure cost me quite a few opportunities in the past. Because the affirmative action program's only criterion is epidermis pigmentation, other minorities are overlooked.

Just to clarify, I don't want the system to be overthrown completely - merely reformed. Measure each individual's potential and financial need, and make judgments accordingly. Making judgments about groups of people merely because of the way they look (all Caucasian people are wealthy and prosperous, and all non-Caucasian people need handouts) is racist in its own way.

ElstonGunn

02-20-2010, 07:28 PM

Can we all agree that the affirmative action program would be far more efficient if it only looked at factors such as income and poverty level, rather than epidermis pigmentation?

Sure. It sounds reasonable to be to tie affirmative action directly to the factors that, as I understand it, it's trying to affect at its core. That seems like a better idea than using race or gender as a surrogate for those factors.

While I may look like any native-born Caucasian-American, my Russian accent reminds people of villains from Cold War movies.

You probably have an interesting perspective on the issue. Setting aside the whole idea of affirmative action for a second, do you have any specific stories about being passed over for race-based assistance while simultaneously being rejected because of your ethnicity? Or is it more along the lines of just a general sense that people might not take too kindly to your "otherness"? (I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, so please don't feel a need to be defensive or to counter-argue me in any respect. I genuinely am interested in any commentary that you can offer on this issue due to your unique background.)

Night Runner

02-20-2010, 08:38 PM

You probably have an interesting perspective on the issue. Setting aside the whole idea of affirmative action for a second, do you have any specific stories about being passed over for race-based assistance while simultaneously being rejected because of your ethnicity? Or is it more along the lines of just a general sense that people might not take too kindly to your "otherness"? (I'm not trying to argue for or against anything, so please don't feel a need to be defensive or to counter-argue me in any respect. I genuinely am interested in any commentary that you can offer on this issue due to your unique background.)
Oh man, the stories I can tell... Not about assistance per se (though it's hard to say, since I never qualified for any in the first place), but there are quite few anecdotes here and there. The anti-white privilege ones, to coin the term. Just off the top of my head:
when I lived in a dorm, my roommates got drunk (we all shared a suite) and one of them attacked me. He was black. I was white. The floor's RA was black. The dorm's director was black. When they all got together to ask us what happened, they believed his made-up story and punished me.

once, a seat opened up in the student government. I applied for it, and so did a Hispanic female student. The student government already had racial diversity (though not much of it), but none of the ethnic kind. When I made a presentation ("and this is why you should pick me" kind of thing), I brought up this point, among many others. She and I were equally qualified, but when the student senators made the choice, their main motivation was to get more "traditional" diversity, because they didn't have enough female and Hispanic members. (I know this for a fact because I listened to the audio recording of the meeting later on - the dummies forgot that everything they say gets recorded and put on their site. :rolleyes:)

like I'd said, as a "minor minority" (to coin another term), I wasn't eligible for any race-based scholarships - all I could get my hands on was the measly federal Pell Grant (courtesy of FAFSA). Russian names are funny-looking, and mine is even more so. I believe that's the main reason why my financial aid application got audited every single time I filed it, four years in a row. The audits required tons of financial and tax documents from my entire family, and they took forever... Only 10% of applicants are supposed to be audited, so my getting audited four times in a row is a 1 in 10,000 occurrence. Either I'm incredibly unlucky, or my "funny name" hypothesis holds water, though there's no way to know for sure.

AnnoyingPony

02-20-2010, 09:21 PM

Night Runner

03-01-2010, 11:10 AM

Setting aside the whole idea of affirmative action for a second, do you have any specific stories about being passed over for race-based assistance while simultaneously being rejected because of your ethnicity?
I can't believe I forgot to mention the big one - housing discrimination. Two years ago, I was looking for a house to rent. A few friends and I drove all over the city, looking for the "for rent" signs, and I diligently called each of those numbers (there must have been over 30 of them altogether) and left standard voicemail messages: Hi, my name is so-and-so, I saw your "for rent" sign, I'm interested, could you call me back, yada yada yada... I only got one (one!) call back over the next three days. I was puzzled - why would landlords ignore a potential customer? Then my friend (born and bred in the States, with a typical American accent) had an idea. He called those same phone numbers from his phone, left the same voicemail message (sans the name, of course), and got callbacks from pretty much every landlord within the next day or two.

The solution is simple. My wacky accent sounds even wackier over the phone, and phonetically, my name sounds almost Hispanic (Russian and Spanish are improbably alike). My theory is that everyone I called assumed I was from south of the border and decided not to bother. (For the record, I finally found the house I ended up renting through craigslist, communicating with my landlord by email.)

If this is the notorious "white privilege," I think I'll just take cash instead. :rolleyes:

AnnoyingPony

03-07-2010, 07:09 PM

Ok, here's an example of why Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination:

I got an award which makes me eligible for higher-level courses. However, I can't afford any of these courses because neither me nor my family are bursting at the seams with money. However, I learned from a phone conversation that financially disadvantaged people can get scholarships. I decided to check the scholarships out, but guess what? You have to be non-white to get one. I was being denied a scholarship to an academic course I wanted to take because of my skin color.

If being unfair to white people is somehow not as bad as being unfair to black people or Hispanic people or Asian people, then I need to buy a bridge.

Ray9

03-07-2010, 08:07 PM

It's not reverse discrimination, it's groupism which is the foundation of everything left wing beginning in about 1972 with the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity act. This laid the groundwork for considering people not as individuals but as components of certain groups based on skin color, gender or ethnicity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is the danger of the expansion of government beyond keeping the peace. In any normal, orderly set of circumstances a citizen is judged by his or her conduct, achievements and reputation but when onerous government beaurocracy interposes itself into the equation the result is almost always pernicious and destructive. Hold on to your hat because this current administration is about to cram some more of the same down the throats of the American people with this healthcare debacle.

boldbidder

03-07-2010, 08:26 PM

Good freaking god, now I know why I swore off this subforum.

Comparing the plight of Irish immigrants to black slaves? Are we joking?

Please believers of this tom foolery if would be so kind as to tell me the following:

*What states had laws on the books counting Irish as some fractional portion of an actual human being?

*What states had 'social clubs' comprised of local police, politicians, and other 'respected' members of the community whose sole purpose was to intimidate and commit violence against the Irish.

*Cite for me if you will what cities/states it was commonplace for a non-irish male to come knocking at an irish family's door and it was expected that any female in the home who'd reach physical maturity was expected to be 'borrowed' for some period of time and be returned later, maybe?

*When was it that it was illegal for Irish to be educated?

*So where exactly where all those breeding farms for Irish workers?

*What year was it that Irish were allowed to marry each other in America?

I'll wait patiently.........

Ray9

03-08-2010, 06:22 PM

Good freaking god, now I know why I swore off this subforum.

Comparing the plight of Irish immigrants to black slaves? Are we joking?

Don't get your undies in a bunch over this. The society you describe certainly existed and it was crude and unfair to blacks. It was also crude and unfair to a lot of other people. They put my great grandmother(1863) on a reservation. She was a Lakota Sioux.
You need to listen to Ward Connerly because he makes sense. Racism is wrong period.

pip

03-09-2010, 08:23 AM

Ray9

03-09-2010, 04:19 PM

Ray, do yourself a favour and stop merging two concepts which are not intrinsically connected at any level.

Racism exists regardless of your preferred means of economic distribution.
The two are NOT in any way related. (Except in your head.)
Knock it off. It's getting tedious now....

Interesting. I never thought of racism as a concept but more of a means to an end.

According to Charles V Hamilton and Kwame Ture (aka Stokely Carmichael) it (racism) is the predication of decisions & policies on considerations of race for the purpose of subordinating a racial group (ethnicity) and maitaining control over that group.

You see, left wing racism exists because its proponents are attempting to achieve a desired end by essentialy fighting fire with fire. Discriminating against innocent individuals based on the race of those individuals is racism in its purist form. Left wing racism is even more pure than what is regarded as historical or institutionalized racism because it is planned. And don't worry about the tedium. You may get tired of hearing it but I never get tired of saying it.

reb

03-09-2010, 05:27 PM

i'm not tired of hearing it; i'm tired of people making excuses for it. to discriminate in any way against a human or animal because of their external differences is racism. when people acknowledge that almost everyone is racist in some way, perhaps we can move on. the deniers make me wish for another large comet strike.

Ray9

06-07-2010, 02:02 PM

themuzicman

06-07-2010, 02:14 PM

*Quietly hums "Puff, the Magic Dragon"... or was it, "Barack, the Magic Negro"?*

Another example of liberal racism.

Night Runner

06-07-2010, 05:32 PM

Another example of liberal racism.
How, exactly? :suspicious: In case you don't know, the "Barack the Magic Negro" song was created for the Rush Limbaugh Show and distributed to members of the Republican National Committee. Are you saying that the RNC is a giant liberal sleeper cell and Limbaugh is a double agent?

phoboser

06-07-2010, 05:36 PM

Affirmative action isn't about punishing white males as much as it is about removing their personally unearned advantages over other subgroups of people.

And it rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that the races are equal in average intellectual ability, which isn't the case. Multiple lines of evidence support that the IQ gap is largely genetically caused, and the most convincing line is regression toward the mean IQ of one's population. Black children of high (and low) IQ parents regress to the mean of 85 while white children of similarly high IQ white parents regress to 100. Black siblings of high IQ blacks regress to 85 while white siblings of high IQ whites regress to 100. This occurs at all SES levels predictably, so if an environmental variable were the cause it would have to affect black people at all SES equally, yet at the same time affect siblings who grew up with the same opportunities and advantages differently, which is highly implausible. The IQ gap is so wide, one SD, that black children in the highest SES average lower IQs than white children in the lowest SES, due to regression.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Affirmative action can't remediate the problem because the problem isn't environmentally caused, and because environmental interventions can't close the gap. Affirmative action unfairly transfers wealth from the deserving to the undeserving. It might not be intended to punish whites and asians, but it does.

Takeru

06-07-2010, 05:38 PM

How, exactly? :suspicious: In case you don't know, the "Barack the Magic Negro" song was created for the Rush Limbaugh Show and distributed to members of the Republican National Committee. Are you saying that the RNC is a giant liberal sleeper cell and Limbaugh is a double agent?

Or they could just be reactionaries. :rolleyes:

I mean, they ARE the extreme liberals/radicals of the FAR right spectrum.

Ray9

06-08-2010, 07:03 PM

Takeru

06-08-2010, 07:39 PM

Some things just can't be hidden, like facial expressons when a person lies. And so it is here. If someone from the right commits even the mildest indiscression there are weeks of indignant posts attacking it from every angle. But when the light shines on a left wing bigot all you hear is the sound of crickets. It says a lot about this place and it make me feel unique and special. It's quite amusing really. :laugh:

Nope, it just mean you are the OP making a general assumption that can easily be disproved by showing that the right can easily be stated as "Right wing racism rears its ugly head again." Because, unfortunately, you don't look at the right side also. I am quite sure there are racist politicians from both sides as well as reporters of all sorts. You just don't care to look at your own party affiliation because you don't want to show how racist they are with their timid and open bigotry.

stasis

06-09-2010, 05:52 AM

Tangent about emotional politics split here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

boldbidder

06-09-2010, 08:50 AM

And it rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that the races are equal in average intellectual ability, which isn't the case. Multiple lines of evidence support that the IQ gap is largely genetically caused, and the most convincing line is regression toward the mean IQ of one's population. Black children of high (and low) IQ parents regress to the mean of 85 while white children of similarly high IQ white parents regress to 100. Black siblings of high IQ blacks regress to 85 while white siblings of high IQ whites regress to 100. This occurs at all SES levels predictably, so if an environmental variable were the cause it would have to affect black people at all SES equally, yet at the same time affect siblings who grew up with the same opportunities and advantages differently, which is highly implausible. The IQ gap is so wide, one SD, that black children in the highest SES average lower IQs than white children in the lowest SES, due to regression.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Affirmative action can't remediate the problem because the problem isn't environmentally caused, and because environmental interventions can't close the gap. Affirmative action unfairly transfers wealth from the deserving to the undeserving. It might not be intended to punish whites and asians, but it does.

Yes, the problem is obviously genetic, clearly the inherent superiority complex of being fair skinned in America has nothing to do with it. A lil fundamental reading. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Holiman

06-09-2010, 03:53 PM

I would love to see Ray admit that he was wrong seeing as the person he mentioned was forced/decided to retire. That the entire media called her out on what she said and no one not the white house, huffington post, or any supposedly liberal outlet covered for her or attempted to shield her from her own words.

The same cannot be said about right wing columnists in similar situations.

LaoTzu

06-12-2010, 04:56 PM

Well, these pompous hypocrites just can't help themselves. Now left wing, jew-hating, racist bigot Helen Thomas has finally opened her Democratic ass-kissing mouth just a little too wide and instead of just uttering inane, outlandish, irrevelevant criticisms of Republican administrations she has revealed her true colors by spewing out what can only be reasonably described as venomous hate speech directed at Jews. This wicked witch of the left who is a veteran of the White House Press corps has stated that Jews should get out of Palistine and go home! "To where?" the question was asked. "To Poland! replied Thomas, and Germany and the United States. Imagine if this statement was made by a right winger like Beck or Limbaugh about the French or the Italians. It's astounding that this phony has lasted as long as she has but that's the reality of left wing bias in the media. Everyone just let her rant without consequences.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

She was forced to resign... what do you want? Blood??
Wicked Witch?
Hate Speech??
French/Italians????

What in the name of Christ are you even talking about?
You might recall she's 90... and while I am sure you're going to think I'll excuse her comment on the basis of senility... I'll surprise you and say that she's been around since before Israel was even a country. Her perspective is a historical one that's been shunted aside by revisionists.
When people hear "Germany/Poland/Jews" the mind seems to revert to the Holocaust. But that's where the bulk of the original Jewish immigration to Palestine was from....Pre-WWII. She's a victim of revisionist history more than anything. And I wont even defend it; because she should know better than to challenge these sacred cows....

Joboman

06-12-2010, 05:31 PM

The fact of the matter is that "everyone is a little bit racist sometimes". That doesn't mean that he's a bad person, and its a big representation to make it seem like all leftists are racist because one is.

Holiman

06-12-2010, 05:44 PM

Lets talk about racism there Ray since you refused to admit you were wrong. ( Dont worry I understand just like your hero Beck you have your reasons for not checking facts or being honest you worked at a paper decades ago right ? )

Here is a real moment of racism;

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Some of the protesters targeted a handful of black members of Congress and one gay lawmaker as they walked from the House office buildings to the Capitol to make a procedural vote.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."

The right winger pundits are all over this one right Ray ? ? ?

Glenn Reynolds, at Instapundit, targeted his ire at James Clyburn, the Congressman and veteran of the civil rights movement. (The capitals, inevitably, are his.) "DOES CLYBURN OWE TEA PARTY PROTESTERS AN APOLOGY? The bogus racism card has been played so often that I no longer find such charges very credible. I'm sure, however, that, true or not, they'll be played much more loudly than the indisputably true statements about the antiwar movement."

Conservative blogger Ann Althouse is more magnanimous and forgiving of the lawmakers. She doesn't want them to apologise. But she does feel that "it's outrageous for them to pose as victims without very good cause. So what if some idiot said a bad word?"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So just asking which group seem's more likely to have issues with racism ?

*** disclaimer, I dont think republicans are more racist than democrats. I just find Ray's premise absurd and serving of an agenda with no regard for the truth.

Ray9

06-12-2010, 06:19 PM

Here is a real moment of racism;

I remember the incident with the Tea Party. Curiously, though there were cameras and microphones everywhere, there were no images or recordings of the harassment or racial slurs. It's entirely likely that the crowd was jeering the Democrats but the racial overtones appear to be fabricated which supports my observation that smearing opposition is a strategy of the left. If you can provide solid evidence that racial slurs took place then I stand corrected.

Joboman

06-12-2010, 06:26 PM

Holiman

06-12-2010, 08:27 PM

I remember the incident with the Tea Party. Curiously, though there were cameras and microphones everywhere, there were no images or recordings of the harassment or racial slurs. It's entirely likely that the crowd was jeering the Democrats but the racial overtones appear to be fabricated which supports my observation that smearing opposition is a strategy of the left. If you can provide solid evidence that racial slurs took place then I stand corrected.

Let me guess, you think the photo's of tea baggers holding racist statments up on their signs are made up as well.

Its entirely posible that the crowd was jeering the democrats and certain people with chips on their shoulders shouted exactly what is claimed. This only becomes important because the pundits yourself included work so hard to cover for them. What you claim about liberal / left racism is simply your own issues your redirecting, I suggest you own your own ideology your looking silly here.

Ray9

06-25-2010, 02:09 PM

Well, here we go again with another blatant example of ignorant racism by a Democrat. This time minorities and defectives are referred to as being less deserving of aid programs than good, average people. I guess this is what you expect from a party where the commander-in-chief is described by his second-in-command as a "clean negro with no negro dialect". Gotta love those Dems. They're disgustingly funny.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holiman

06-25-2010, 03:27 PM

Work on your facts more there Ray that quote doesnt exhist. It is made up of two quotes made by Senator Harry Reid, and VP Biden.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ray9

06-25-2010, 08:10 PM

Work on your facts more there Ray that quote doesnt exhist. It is made up of two quotes made by Senator Harry Reid, and VP Biden.

Sorry, I guess all Democrats look alike to me.

phej

06-27-2010, 07:06 PM

Sorry, I guess all Democrats look alike to me.

So you wish to make the fallacy of division? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Ray9

06-27-2010, 08:35 PM

So you wish to make the fallacy of division?

This entire thread exposes the deductive fallacy that states that only conservatives can be racists and commit racist acts. A racist act is an act that conciously and deliberately disadvantages a group or member of a group based on membership in that group or characteristics shared by members of the group. Holy Mackerel! I just described Affirmative Action.

Ytterbium

06-28-2010, 04:04 PM

What's left-wing racism?

I'm left-wing, am I racist? Probably. We all are.

Holiman

06-30-2010, 02:59 PM

This entire thread exposes the deductive fallacy that states that only conservatives can be racists and commit racist acts. A racist act is an act that conciously and deliberately disadvantages a group or member of a group based on membership in that group or characteristics shared by members of the group. Holy Mackerel! I just described Affirmative Action.

See I would love to believe in your altruistic motive here Ray. Lets for instance take at face value your intent was to expose that people think conservatives are racist. First you must lay out a groundwork for that position you never have or even attempted to do that. Actually you simply attacked a group and labeled them racist, which funny enough is the same thing you pretend you now were attempting to correct.

**PS this point makes you a hypocrite.

Now if you want to expose the racism in politics I for one am with you there but I doubt you have such motives, however I am willing to be suprised. Now you have ranted for months on end about programs such as AA social welfare and any program meant to alter the problems of inner city, poor minorities and whomever else may fit into the category of using goverment aid programs. While these programs may be failures by your standards or perhaps just costly self defeating charities you have yet ever to link any social program to an intent of anyone to cause harm to a race or group.

Ray9

06-30-2010, 09:26 PM

Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] As a practice, it means the same thing as racial discrimination. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is one definition of racism missing from the wiki page. That would be political/academic racism. In the United States one racial group votes for one particular political party in overwhelming numbers, well over 90 percent. So it's not outlandish to conclude that this particular racial group benefits from planned, institutionalized racial policies that discriminate against selected members of other groups who posess characteristics identifying them as components of a disfavored faction based on physical appearance, historical national heritage and genetic make-up re caucasian males of European ancestry. In other words, one political party in this country harnesses the loyalty of one group by discriminating against another based on race and skin color and uses the the government to enforce these racist policies. Racism is racism.

Holiman

07-01-2010, 07:29 PM

Let me see if I can boil your thoughts down and remove your overly buzz word laden diatribe and take this into small bites.

Your angry black voters generally vote democratic.

You think policies by democrats are written with the intent to subjugate and demoralize black people to keep them in line.

You think democrats employ anti white racist methods and use the goverment to enforce them.

None of these thoughts are new or particularly earth shattering, but your not really showing evidence of those things merely slinging mud. Make a solid argument for once please.

PS. if you think thats bad your really going to be angry when the latino vote goes democratic as well.

Redman

07-02-2010, 02:37 PM

I came to the conclusion that americans in general are the only people that really see themselves as seperate due to race. I spent 3 yrs in japan had american friends of many different race and the Japanese viewed us as one people regardless of our color while we broke our own society down by the color code standard.

I think until we as a whole can start seeing ourselves as one group instead of a hodge podge of many groups racism is going to continue to exist. Its the responsibility of peope on both sides of the issue to continue to make an effort to be proud of what and where they came from but, not put another person or people down because there views or looks vary from yours in the end we are all AMERICANS after all.

Night Runner

07-02-2010, 03:02 PM

I think until we as a whole can start seeing ourselves as one group instead of a hodge podge of many groups racism is going to continue to exist.
There's too much baggage in terms of history. Centuries of slavery don't just go "poof" when you enact the Emancipation Proclamation or elect a black president. It will get better someday, but not anytime soon: not as long as people who remember - and took part in - the segregation and other racist acts are still alive.

Redman

07-02-2010, 03:14 PM

I dont think that forgetting the bad or ugly parts of history is ever a good idea, however the idea of "sins of the father" is completely wrong. People tend to live up to or down to the expectations of society. I think its going to take peope actually coming out and saying I am not a "random race of choice" I am an American and holding true to that view and passing it down to our children and making sure that color is never the first thing they see when they look at people. When you seperate yourself by race or color you are helping to continue racisim and the stygma that goes with it.

Night Runner

07-02-2010, 05:26 PM

I support your idea, but we still have parts of Midwest and pretty much the entire South, which can be really, really racist due to a combination of history, culture, and homogeneous environment that doesn't change quickly. Unless you're planning a massive resettlement and/or mind-wipe, those attitudes will remain in place. They might get slightly weaker, but they'll still be there...

Ray9

07-02-2010, 07:58 PM

There's too much baggage in terms of history. Centuries of slavery don't just go "poof" when you enact the Emancipation Proclamation or elect a black president. It will get better someday, but not anytime soon: not as long as people who remember - and took part in - the segregation and other racist acts are still alive.

It's more complicated than that. You read the book and saw the movie, now become aquainted with reality:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holiman

07-02-2010, 08:14 PM

Now that is where you dive off the deep end there Ray. You see you have linked that same tired old concept alot its not really new its based on the article youve posted alot. Now as you look at this picture I posted you can see how much those programs effected the problem of poverty in America. Now those programs are old and have been abused this is very true we need to deal with some very real problems and come up with new concepts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So what are republicans offering to help this ?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes thats right tax the poor more and fix the financial crisis.

Its easy to pick apart 40 year old programs how about new concepts to deal with poverty other than kick those lazy (insert your own negative slur here) off their ass and make em work.

Ray9

07-02-2010, 09:01 PM

Its easy to pick apart 40 year old programs how about new concepts to deal with poverty other than kick those lazy (insert your own negative slur here) off their ass and make em work.

You miss the point entirely. I and most Americans don't blame the slaves. It's those nice white scholars who were going to manipulate society and control outcomes who are the targets of our bottomless contempt. The sociological damage that's been done is severe and it's not going to cure itself overninght. Progressives have served up a fine mess for us and the price of cleaning it up may be painful.

JTG

07-02-2010, 09:38 PM

I and most Americans don't blame the slaves. It's those nice white scholars who were going to manipulate society and control outcomes who are the targets of our bottomless contempt.

Maybe if those nice scholars (of any race really) were in charge, things would change. The really smart people usually aren't marketable or well-rounded enough to be elected to positions of great power. They're usually taken on as advisors. There are plenty of cases where an expert in a field has advised that certain circumstances would cause certain outcomes. Those in power don't (or sometimes can't) listen because doing the "right" thing in some situations goes against the will of the people.

The masses, as subjects of the media, prejudice, our own various subcultures, and other influencing factors, often don't see a big enough picture to react well when an unpopular decision is made for the greater good. Since the masses have the power, unpopular decisions mean politicians lose their jobs, which means such decisions are often not made.

It's just a flaw in democracy. No governmental system is perfect.