- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What an over extension of the argument. The Democrats are the ones that perpetuate poverty, rather than reforming the programs to enable people to rise out of poverty. Many minorities have similar base values as the Republican party but feel that that GOP doesn't care about them due to the GOP's marginalizing of their situation in life as well as the Democrat's painting the GOP as evil and hateful toward minorities. This has been debated here hundreds of times, and will not be agreed upon by either of us in a way that would put it to bed tonight.
Ok, fine, so what does that have to do with me?
While I totally, even vehemently, disagree with him in terms of commercial property owner's rights, to claim he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is a lie. But it is a Democrat race-baiting talking point and it is your role to repeat it.
I'm no lover of the Democratic party either, which has nothing to do with the thread topic really. I was just explaining my personal stance of racism and bigotry and why I am more accepting of one type vs another. Do with it what you will. Suggesting somehow that minding my manners is the best way out of inequality is very .... telling.
Nothing as far as i am known. Just quoting someone who started the debate so i figured you probably shared the same view since you came into the same discussion.
Well, there is no such thing as a equal playing field when it comes to employment.
Really? Do you or him believe a word you say?
In the Michael Dunn trial, the media and prosecutor are calling him a racist because of letters he wrote. Yet in none of those did he claim that the white race is superior or black race inferior.
So... then you MUST agree calling him a "racist" is wrong, that the media and prosecutor are lying - correct?
Same with George Zimmerman. He never said blacks are inferior. So all that a LIE LIE LIE too right? From now on, neither of you should EVER use the words racism and racist UNLESS you can show the person specifically declared another race is inferior.
I believe trying to put myself in other people's shoes when I've forming an opinion is a very good trait. I can tell you don't. Now I'm not very warm and fuzzy when I step into those shoes, but I do try to analyze fairly, often referring to the whole do unto others aspect by reviewing if I have any situation that would resemble "theirs" whoever "theirs" is, in this case AAs. It's not a matter of enjoyment, it's a matter of doing my best to logically solve the problem of having no natural empathy.You really do TRY to put yourself into the victim role! Do you enjoy doing so? I never even hinted at "minding (your) "manners." I don't have a clue how you could legitimately have read it that way. It is your interpretation that is "telling," but candidly I don't see this as a dispute thing between us. Like I said, I don't know you. It's just forum personaes.
To instead explain what I meant, is that rather than using and seeking excuses, a person should just tactically power thru and beyond it. Once I became an adult my way of dealing with being treated unfairly was to power thru, over or past it. That is the exact opposite from minding my manners. A person should play the cards they have, rather than lamenting those they don't.
I believe trying to put myself in other people's shoes when I've forming an opinion is a very good trait. I can tell you don't. Now I'm not very warm and fuzzy when I step into those shoes, but I do try to analyze fairly, often referring to the whole do unto others aspect by reviewing if I have any situation that would resemble "theirs" whoever "theirs" is, in this case AAs. It's not a matter of enjoyment, it's a matter of doing my best to logically solve the problem of having no natural empathy.
I read it legitimately that way because that's essentially what your first sentence indicates. Sometimes anger is the right response for those that are under the thumb of others. To say one shouldn't get angry as your leading questions indicate, is the same as to say, "mind your manners." Again you know all this, you're just backpeddling because you got caught.
"Power through it" is pretty vague. And I see that now you are presenting a different presentation than you did in the first sentence of your prior post. So for some folks powering through it may require a level of anger, or frustration, or any of the other responses I mentioned in the post prior to your focusing on the word "anger" and trying to claim that I enjoy being a "victim".
As soon as I see the word "violence" I get why you're not understanding my position. I am able to be angry and at the same time do no violence. Apparently to you anger, frustration, and other similar motivating responses equate violence. To me that don't.I'm not back pedaling, although do understand how you could see it that way. Emotions - anger, self pity, fear or whatever had no value in my childhood and were only very detrimental that could bring severe harm. There was no sense of such things as right or wrong, fairness or justice because they did not exist. Just reality and questions of power. The only outward display of emotions that made sense were tactical. Internally they were only dangerous distractions that could break a person. My responses were tactical for my self interests and to calculate what I needed to do.
As an adult it was very rare that I would become angry and if so it would be displayed in sudden violence - which would be about someone hurting a child or woman, not me. If violence was about me, it was tactical, not emotional. This, of course, is generally not acceptable in civilized society's laws or conduct expectations. I see value in aggressiveness and in being tactical, but not in anger or fear or self pity. I doubt anyone who has ever known me would use the word "nice."
But rather than go further down this path, I do understand why in the context of most people you would conclude that questioning the value of angry would equate to being submissive and nice. If it is to my best tactical advantage or to reach a goal I will be submissive. I do not make myself a victim nor ever accept that I am one. I can accept reality for what it is. I think it best to just leave it at that.
What about people who support him because he's black? Is that equally racism?
And then there are those on this thread ("liberal/progressive") arguing that since there is no claiming of racial inferiority, it isn't racism at all.
Yes, there is racism in the country. No, I do not think it is 1/10th what the media and press try to make it to be.
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
Oh, bull****. Liberals don't dislike Clarence Thomas because he's some sort of "Uncle Tom." Liberals don't like Clarence Thomas because he votes in lockstep with Antonin Scalia, who liberals also don't like. Does that mean that liberals are biased against Italians because liberals don't like Fat Tony?
Liberals don't like Clarence Thomas because he rules against liberal interests.
They do some of this out of self preservation both politically and from a power base. Keeping race as an issue is far too important as simply such an accusation can shut down real debate, real issues or one's opponent immediately. No other issue will do such a thing in our society.I agree there is a difference between racism and racialism, but democrats are more racist as a whole. They are the ones that cannot be colorblind, and insist on quota systems. The use of a quota system for example implies that blacks cannot compete on an equal playing field, and that makes it a racist idea.
Because Democrats promote the welfare state, they provide things "free" to minorities especially those in the urban locations, and use scare tactics on them telling them if they vote for a Republican they will take this away from you. Democrats have over the past three or four decades created a dependency class that make up a majority of minorities, primarily to keep Democrats in office.These types of arguments on the right imply that Blacks and other minorities are a bunch of idiots. Otherwise why would the vast, vast, vast majority of them always vote Democrat?
Far from it, but they've been manipulated for so long, and made dependent while being provided sub standard educational opportunities, what other choices do they really have?If the Democrats are the real racists then obviously minorities are stupid right?
Democrats I don't think are "racist" but many use race as a wedge for mostly a political gain. They spread that throughout some regions and states and there are still all too many who believes whitey is the enemy. Of course there are still racists of all colors and creeds out there - but the hucksters, the manipulators are tolerated by Democrats and even embraced, while they are shunned and ostracized in any other political party. The right thing to do is shun and ostracize them in ALL political and social areas.Perhaps the Democrats are not the racist party after all. I don't think the Republican Party is either, but there sure as hell is a lot more confederate flag waving rednecks voting Republican than Democrat.
Really? Do you or him believe a word you say?
...
Same with George Zimmerman. He never said blacks are inferior. So all that a LIE LIE LIE too right? From now on, neither of you should EVER use the words racism and racist UNLESS you can show the person specifically declared another race is inferior.
So that Dem represents ALL the liberals? Come on really? That's like saying Rush Limbaugh represents ALL conservatives.
There are idiots on all sides. There was a post the other day about a radio caller wanting Obama executed, but I guess they represent all conservatives too right? :roll:
As soon as I see the word "violence" I get why you're not understanding my position. I am able to be angry and at the same time do no violence. Apparently to you anger, frustration, and other similar motivating responses equate violence. To me that don't.
Oh c'mon. Winkler represents a district in Minnesota, so I guess it's just the liberals in that district, or so you'd have me believe. How many times has the left taken comments from some nut like Aiken or a similar polemic extreme and made them into a war on women or some such tripe that is the stock in trade of much of the left, including the president himself. Winkler is a Harvard graduate, so he must be correct. You guys just don't like it when your own political tactics are applied to you.
LOL you don't even know my politics so don't pretend to understand. So then we can apply some nutjob to all you conservatives then right?
But you know mine, huh? Here's a sampling of something thoughtfully provided by the left here today: http:// RWW News: Beck Reviews 'The Monuments Men' By Blaming 'Progressives' For The Holocaus
That's not the definition of "racist."
rac·ist
[rey-sist]
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
rac·ism
[rey-siz-uhm]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
But yeah yeah yeah, liberals are the Real Racists for pointing out when stuff is racist. :roll:
Again, using YOUR logic, Beck, Limbaugh, and all those blowhards represent conservatives then right?
Clarence Thomas has been accused of being an Uncle Tom by blacks and the left since he was elevated to national prominence. It's no secret except perhaps to you. Embrace the causes and cliches your fellow political travelers support. I don't support any of it, and you know nothing of how I think. My original response to a post served to demonstrate that the post I responded to was full of it. The political left has excoriated Justice Thomas routinely and not solely based on his rendered opinions, as the label applied demonstrates sufficiently.
That voids 90% of the accusations of racism the Libbos have been crying about for the past 30 odd years.
Thanks for posting that, because now we know that it isn't racist to crticize Obama.
Yes, you are correct. And I would wager the majority criticizing Obama aren't racists, but some are. My Uncle on my wife's side is the perfect example of that. But I would agree the majority of Obama's criticizers are not racist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?