Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Tea Party video

Tea Party video (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 10:57 AM
 
And I (nor anyone else) has advocated what you are arguing.

The "argument" was about the origins of the rights - and you apparently agree with my position, that the founding fathers found that to be God (or "their Creator") and NOT Congress.

No one said ANYTHING about ruling according to Christian Doctrine, until YOU did.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
And I (nor anyone else) has advocated what you are arguing.

The "argument" was about the origins of the rights - and you apparently agree with my position, that the founding fathers found that to be God (or "their Creator") and NOT Congress.

No one said ANYTHING about ruling according to Christian Doctrine, until YOU did.
Don't blame me if the rest of you aren't articulating very well. The discussion, at various points, centered around whether God is the "sole proprietor" of our rights (olePigeon's language), whether the founders wanted the country to be "ruled by God" (sek29), and your positive evaluation of the Tea Party Manifesto's call to govern on the basis of the belief that rights are derived from God. It's fine to recognize that as individuals the founders felt that natural rights were endowed by God, but in terms of current policy it is irrelevant, because natural rights can be respected as inviolate no matter where they came from. Calling for government to officially recognize that they are derived from God pushes us needlessly towards theocracy.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 11:32 AM
 
You can debate what individual founding fathers thought in regards to religion.

You can debate whether or not the fact that they all signed and agreed to a document which clearly states that our legal rights are derived from a spiritual supreme being which most Americans worship as "Christians" makes this a "Christian" nation.

What I never take seriously is this idea that our founding fathers as a majority ever intended for the people of the United States to be free FROM religion, in as much as it would be banned in any way from interaction with the government.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for a country who is founded on a set of principles which where handed down by God, to have to separate itself from the one who gave us our rights. Especially when you see the wealth of evidence that other than ensuring that one religious denomination didn't hold sway over any others in law, that our founding fathers encouraged religious expression by those in government and the people.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
The "argument" was about the origins of the rights - and you apparently agree with my position, that the founding fathers found that to be God (or "their Creator") and NOT Congress.
You, and the Tea Party, keep insinuating that it's the Christian God. "Nature's God" and the "Creator" were the common phrases used to describe one's origins of self being or morality during the enlightenment. It was ambiguous on purpose out of respect for all beliefs, including those of atheists.

There are three unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; anything not under those three categories are under the purview of the government. However unalienable, the government is in charge of making sure these rights are not violated:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So regardless of where you think these rights come from, if your argument is based on the Declaration of Independence, then you must acknowledge as stated by the Declaration of Independence that it is the Government's responsibility to determine what these rights are (because they're not all listed there), and how to protect them. Again, that is what the Constitution is for. It is the government of derived by men, not a god, that determines our own principles.

Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
No one said ANYTHING about ruling according to Christian Doctrine, until YOU did.
Conservative Christian Republicans formed the Tea Party, it's championed by a very Conservative Christian; are you honestly going to tell me that the Tea Party is not about Christian Doctrine?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What I never take seriously is this idea that our founding fathers as a majority ever intended for the people of the United States to be free FROM religion, in as much as it would be banned in any way from interaction with the government.
DId you just sleep through U.S. History class? King Charles just got done murdering Protestants across the country; family and friends of our founding fathers. Do you honestly believe that people escaping religious tyranny would want religion influencing their politics?

Thomas Jefferson was adamant about keeping these two aspects separate; the government wouldn't interfere with religion, and religion wouldn't interfere with government. Each would be left to their own devices.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 12:36 PM
 
Once again for you edification.
Christian life and character of the civil institutions of the United States - Google Books AKA the book the ACLU doesn't want you to know about.
( Last edited by Chongo; Mar 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM. )
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Samuel Adams/Benjamin Franklin:
I was referring to John Adams, by far the most progressive of all the founding fathers. Ben Franklin also said lighthouses are more useful than churches.

Also, BTW, referring to God in no way means the Christian god, got that?

Also also, if they founding fathers truly believed this nation should be a christian nation then they wee completely ****ing wrong. Men can be wrong, they all owned slaves (sans Adams) yet we still think every word they spoke is undying truth.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I was referring to John Adams, by far the most progressive of all the founding fathers. Ben Franklin also said lighthouses are more useful than churches.

Also, BTW, referring to God in no way means the Christian god, got that?

Also also, if they founding fathers truly believed this nation should be a christian nation then they wee completely ****ing wrong. Men can be wrong, they all owned slaves (sans Adams) yet we still think every word they spoke is undying truth.
I know, I also posted a bank of John Adams quotes for you, along with a pro-Christian Franklin quote - not the only one, if you want me to post more.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Thanks for the kudos OAW.

80% of the country is white and most of the country is centre-right to right. When you say "overwhelmingly white and conservative" it only follows logically given the demographics of this country.
This is true. But consider this. African-Americans are anywhere from 12-15% of the country. But consider this regarding the 2008 Republican National Convention ....

There are 36 black delegates at the Republican convention here — fewer than 2% of the total and a sharp drop-off from 2004, a think tank reports. The GOP record was set with 6.7% black delegates in 2004.

The Democratic Party, which has targets for minority representation, said a record 24.5% of delegates at its convention last week were black. That's about twice the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau.
So the participation here was approx. 16% of the overall black population percentage for Republicans, and double the overall black population percentage for Democrats. I haven't participated in any Tea Party functions myself ... but I have witnessed a couple of their protest rallies. Now from where I was standing I didn't see a single black face. But I've seen some on TV and like I said you might see "a few specks of pepper in a sea of salt" so to speak. So indeed you are correct. One would expect the Tea Party to be "overwhelmingly white and conservative" given the demographics of the country. That's only being logical. All I'm saying is that black participation in the Tea Party is likely even lower than it was at the Republican National Convention. If one were to throw a rock into a typical Tea Party rally a hundred times in a row ... I don't think I'd be exaggerating if I said that the chances of it hitting someone black would be negligible at best. I'm just talking numbers here. So when you say that Tea Partiers come from "all walks of life" and list "black" as one of them that just implies ... to me at least ... that there is a level of diversity within that group where its platform would be significantly influenced by those other than "white and conservative". And I'm just not seeing all that. Again that's not a criticism ... just an observation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Agreed, but this is a reactionary human nature my friend. Again, it's a numbers game. I don't recall a great deal of outrage over Iraq while Clinton was lobbing missiles, but Bush sure got their attention with shock and awe and the taking of Saddam. I could as easily say most of the vocal opposition to this action were incapable of locating Iraq on a map, but I don't think it's useful, necessary, or fair to try to frame people as "blindly" following anything. BTW, Bush also lost most of whatever legacy he had left with plummeting approval ratings and seeing his party out of the House and Senate in the meantime. The movement had already begun to ratchet up OAW. This conservative, right-leaning country began to lose real faith in the Republican party and grew to resent it. What was there left to take the streets over? Bush was on his way out and they knew if they had anything to do with it, so were a whole bunch of Republicans. This is one of the primary reasons why I don't think you can peg the Tea Party as "overwhelmingly" anything. Naturally, the lion's share of Obama's drop in approval ratings have been among independents. I also believe they're the ones that had the greatest impact on Obama's election. I think this movement is much more diverse than many on the left would be willing to acknowledge. In reality all you're really seeing is an increasing lack of trust or regard for Congress and government in general. The only reason the Tea Party owns this rap is because they are exercising their freedom of speech. If they allow any attempt to paint them as "overwhelmingly" anything, they will be marginalized and eventually silenced. In other words, they do exactly as the left would have them; shut up already. You must know a great many on the left would love nothing more.
I feel you on this. Of course, I could quibble with you about a point or two ... but I overall I understand where you are coming from.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I never acknowledged that "race is a factor". I can't think of a single contribution or impact racism has had on the Tea Party movement or its collective ideology/world view.
Not directly no. But you did say "... unfortunately included in this display are back-woods dumbasses, bigots, and racists." .... when talking about the Tea Party crowd. So I can't see how on the one hand you acknowledge that "dumbasses, bigots, and racists" are part of the Tea Party crowd ... but on the other hand you say they have no impact of the Tea Party movement? Now bear in mind I'm not saying that those who fall into that category are the majority in the Tea Party. I'm not even saying that the Tea Party platform is rooted in their nonsense. I'm just saying that for a not so insignificant number of people in the Tea Party crowd the extra vitriol and venom being spewed about seems to be about more than just "big government run amok". Know what I'm saying?

And unfortunately, you have so-called "leaders/entertainers" who feed into their racial fears and insecurities (all the way to the bank):

Originally Posted by Glenn Beck
The health care bill is reparations. It's the beginning of reparations.
Please tell me that you recognize the utter absurdity of that! Comments like that resonate with certain people for a reason ... and that's definitely not because of anything mathematical or simple common sense. <<<<< (Not you. Beck and his listeners who agree with it.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy
If party platform during the civil rights era were truly causal of racial sensitivity toward the GOP, they'd be running full steam away from the Democratic party. Period. The dixiecrats who tried to hijack the Republican party were unelectable on the Republican ticket and eventually turned with tail between their legs back to the Democratic party. How many former clansmen are allowed in the GOP OAW? I think too many have been bamboozled here.
I hear you on that. But for every Robert Byrd I can point out a Jesse Helms and a Strom Thurmond. Both of whom were Dixiecrats who were quite electable on the Republican ticket for a very long time I might add. And personally I'd rather have a former KKK member who's on the right side of the issues now than one who was never a member but from a political strategy perspective it's kind of hard to tell.

But seriously ... I think I wasn't clear and you may have misunderstood my point. When I said that black support for the GOP is a "drop in the bucket" for reasons going back to the civil rights era, I didn't intend that to mean African-Americans are still holding a grudge against the GOP for its platform from that era. Oh no! I mean African-Americans by and large don't support the GOP today because of its actions since that era.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he said that "We have lost the South for a generation." Again, there's a reason for that. The GOP employed the Southern Strategy for decades ever since ... to great effect. And it did not go unnoticed by the African-American community. I mean come on my friend ... surely you know by now that I'm not one to just make stuff up.

Just one example would be President Ronald Reagan ... the icon of the GOP ... who opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's. And how did he begin his general election campaign in 1980? With a powerfully symbolic appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered in the summer of 1964. The crowd went nuts when he employed some classic dog-whistle politics and declared ... ''I believe in states' rights.'' Oh. Ok.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Even Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairmen have acknowledged this to be true. The late Lee Atwater (protege of Ed Rollins and mentor to Karl Rove) ... adviser to President Reagan and campaign manager for President George H. W. Bush ... discussed how this worked in 1981 when he said ....

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigg*r, nigg*r, nigg*r.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigg*r' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'nigg*r, nigg*r.'
I mean seriously ... this is straight out of the mouth of the architect of the infamous Willie Horton ads during the 1988 Presidential Campaign. But if that isn't enough we can always see what Ken Mehlman had to say about it in 2005:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.
USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

Like I said ... I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my a*s here. Nor am I talking about "ancient history" either.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 25, 2010 at 07:23 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
... and I've long maintained that blacks on the whole are far more conservative than they vote; fiscally and socially. I also believe conservatism offers the best opportunity of producing the most equitable society, but that's a thread for another time.
Socially ... no doubt. Fiscally ... perhaps. On that note .... personally I was sooooo glad President Clinton agreed to welfare reform during his term. Because I, like most other African-Americans, believe in work. And like anyone else who believes the same ... we have little sympathy for able-bodied people who want to sit on their a*s and be "professional mailbox watchers". I mean if people need some temporary assistance that's one thing. But gaming the system and making it a way of life generation after generation? Not so much. But an even bigger reason is because the passage of welfare reform neutralized it on the GOP agenda and removed it from the national political discourse. I mean ... when was the last time that topic came up? And here's a little secret. The reason why the GOP found little support from the black community on that issue is because it offended us how in political ads (and the media in general) the "face of welfare" was ALMOST ALWAYS some "welfare queen" in the ghetto ... when the reality was that the majority of people on welfare were white women in trailer parks ... suburban and rural. That's not to say that there weren't black people on welfare. Clearly there were. That's not to say that black people weren't disproportionately on welfare. Blacks are disproportionately poor in the US so that's not surprising. The problem was it became clear from political ads, online discussions, talk radio, etc. that for a not so insignificant number of the GOP base the issue wasn't "their tax dollars being wasted on welfare". The issue was "their tax dollars being wasted on black people on welfare". But again, part of the Southern Strategy was to take a legitimate (albeit overblown) concern and use it as a wedge issue politically.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
If Republicans allow themselves to be painted as owning the "reason there are so few blacks in the Republican party" they empower those who would marginalize and silence them.
Well they ought to own it in all fairness. For the reasons I outlined above. Seriously ... you have two separate RNC Chairmen fessin' up about it! The black community started off as Republicans. From Emancipation through Reconstruction and beyond. The migration to the Democrats started during FDR and the New Deal along with Truman integrating the armed forces.. It increased with Kennedy and Johnson with the passage of the historic Civil Rights legislation. And it solidified to 95+% levels because of the racially charged tactics the GOP has employed since that time in order to gain political power. Quite frankly my friend ... that is not opinion. These are documented facts. But you never know. One day we might return to our political origins.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Now, should everyone have to acknowledge conviction for the exploitation of minorities in this country? Absolutely. Republicans can't win for losing and IMO blacks lose when Dems win. What I've always wanted to see Republicans do more effectively is acknowledge that while there have been racially unsavory characters amongst them throughout history, racism has never been an integral or necessary part of conservatism. Conservatism in the US is the comparatively new ideal on this globe. Conservatism does not give a man a fish, it teaches a man to fish, etc... Can the Republican party be more effective at reaching out to the black community? Absolutely, but it's not for lack of trying. They've been effectively painted with a broad brush of antiquated sentiment that permeates both parties. Republicans need to muster the courage to tackle this issue head-on as opposed to running from it out of fear of how the left will twist what they're saying and doing.
I feel you. I mean as quiet as its kept President Bush made greater inroads into the black community than any Republican in recent history. I think he garnered 9% and 11% of the black vote in the 2000 and 2004 elections respectively. Typically GOP support among blacks would be a "drop in the bucket" as I've said. Well Bush managed to get "2 drops in the bucket". Because his support was nearly double that of most GOP candidates. This was done primarily by making a sustained outreach effort in black churches (which has traditionally been the center of black politics) and quite frankly, by playing the "gay marriage" card. But beyond that, his appointment of Colin Powell and Condi Rice to very prominent Cabinet positions did not go unnoticed. Much higher than any President ... Dem or GOP ... had done before. His support for charter schools, vouchers, and that line about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" resonated with a lot of African-Americans .... myself included. But I'm telling you this in all honesty. The inroads Bush made will evaporate if the GOP continues to "coddle" or even "turn a blind eye" to the racist elements in the Tea Party crowd. Just like our good friends on the right feel that moderate Muslims should vociferously denounce the radical, terrorist elements within Islam ... the African-American community feels that conservatives should vociferously denounce the racist elements within their own ranks. Even better still, don't pander to them in the first place to win elections as has been done so many times in the past.

Now as for enticing African-Americans back into the GOP fold .... in all honesty, it's going to take a minute. (And by "minute" I mean "a long time" for those unfamiliar with my occasional use of the vernacular. ) You see right now it's more an issue of trust than it is policy/platform. When you have a segment of the population who feel that a political party has pursued political power for decades via strategies that are hostile to them as a people .... the motivation for outreach will be questioned. Even if some aspects of the platform make sense ... even if they agree on many of the issues ... the impression for most will be that the outreach is more about tokenism than genuine solidarity. It's going to take sustained outreach and a lot of patience to overcome that.

Think of it like this. The black community is like the "jilted lover" of the GOP. They were tight, rock solid, thick as thieves for a long time. But then the GOP abandoned her for another lover. And that b*tch didn't like her. At all. The other chick would slash her tires. Set fires in her yard. Even killed her dog. Not because she had done something bad to the woman .... just, you know ... because. So she went on about her business and hooked up with another guy (the Dems). Been hanging out with him ever since. The GOP sees that she's taken another lover and after a while he wants her to come back. But she's like ... "Oh nooooowwww you want some more of this? You weren't thinking about me when you were chasing after that b*tch!!"

Understand?

So what does the guy (the GOP) do in this situation? It all depends on how bad he wants her back. If he only wants her back because she's with somebody else that definitely won't work because she'll see right through that. To get her back will take some smooth talking. A lot of "Baby, baby, please!". And most importantly patience and a genuine desire to rekindle the relationship. It's going to require actions ... not words ... to convince her that he's serious about being together again. She's not going to be very responsive to "He (the Dems) is no good for you!" or "He ain't all that!". Because at this stage in the game the other guy has been her man for a very long time. And she's well aware by now that he's just "so-so" in bed, he leaves the toilet seat up, and he takes her for granted. She knows that he is by no means a perfect man ... but since they've been together at least he's never abandoned her. Especially for that b*tch.

So maybe she'll take him back eventually. Maybe she won't. He may give up and decide that it's not worth the effort. Especially since lately he's had his eye on this little Chica anyway. But that's just the way it goes in love and politics.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 26, 2010 at 05:57 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2010, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
DId you just sleep through U.S. History class? King Charles just got done murdering Protestants across the country; family and friends of our founding fathers. Do you honestly believe that people escaping religious tyranny would want religion influencing their politics?
There's a huge chasm between tyranny and tolerant adherence.

It's clear that the founding fathers where religious people who wanted their values (passed down from God) reflected in the laws and government, while still maintaining an open-minded fairness towards those whose beliefs might differ. That's what separated the "new world" from the old.

Thomas Jefferson was adamant about keeping these two aspects separate; the government wouldn't interfere with religion, and religion wouldn't interfere with government. Each would be left to their own devices.
It's too bad for him that he was one guy, and a bunch of other guys had a say and he had to compromise in regards to what he personally wanted. What we know is that everyone, including Jefferson, agreed that the rights our laws protect weren't created by them OR the Supreme Court. They were passed down from God. They signed a document that proclaimed that to be true.

To suggest that this was the case, in addition to ample evidence that the majority of the founding fathers seemed to have no problem with allowing religious expression as part of governmental policy (while allowing dissent and differing opinions), and still trying to argue that the intent of the first amendment was to create a freedom FROM religion for the people of this country makes absolutely no sense.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2010, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Mindless repeating of talking points already addressed...
In one ear out the other. I'm done arguing with you if you can't even bother yourself to read a U.S. history book.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
In one ear out the other. I'm done arguing with you if you can't even bother yourself to read a U.S. history book.
Simply replying "read a U.S. history book" doesn't really qualify as debate, so I don't think we are losing much.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2010, 10:47 AM
 
OAW, I obviously appreciate your perspective here, but again, it drives me crazy picking apart individual characters with you. For every "sluggish on civil rights" Reagan you cite, I'll cite a "sluggish on civil rights" Kennedy. This in light of the fact that the language in the 1964 Civil Rights Act very closely resembles prior Republican bills the party of "no" opposed in 1957. (with a few items watered down by 1964 of course)

Regarding Reagan's alleged act of hatred against the black community for his "hate" speak in Philadelphia, Miss.; you'll recall he was vying against Jimmy Carter for the Presidency OAW. Carter barely squeaked out a victory in Mississippi in 1976 and that State was among the most hotly contested at that point in 1980. The Reagan campaign found this particular venue attractive from a June 1980 National Geographic magazine article titled “Mississippi’s Grand Reunion at the Neshoba County Fair” and thought this would be a good and captive audience. That's politics, not racism.

Know where Reagan went the next day? He hit a plane from Mississippi to Manhattan to address the Urban League. ... but let's look at the words of the hateful Mississippi address;

I don’t believe the stereotype, after what we did, of people in need who are there [on welfare] simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there’s no way they can get away. And they’re trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves. I believe there are programs like that, programs like education and others that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [inaudible]... I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, [applause] I will devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions that properly belong there.

What a jerk! I notice this Reagan in Miss. thing comes up in election cycles. Reagan is criticized for adhering to the ideal of State's Rights, but of course Jimmy Carter gets a pass on his 1976 campaign rhetoric opposing government programs that seek “to inject black families into a white neighborhood just to create some sort of integration.” adding “I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This rhetoric would earn him some sound rebuke from Jesse Jackson; "“a throwback to Hitlerian racism.” or Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson; “Is there no white politician I can trust?” Excellent article here. Jimmy Carter, where to start man... , but we'll let him opine on why race is relevant to Obama's opposition today.

Reagan did an adequate job of explaining his voting record IMO and I'd be willing to give him at least as much credibility as anyone else's preferred ideological heavyweight. I wonder what their history of racial temperance might look like? Anyway...
Among Reagan's more contentious notions of course were those of State's rights. No surprise to me that this ideal would have to be isolated and labeled as it's at the very core of Conservatism. The more you can tether this ideal to a reprehensible practice, the easier it will be to confound and conquer. Conservatism is guilty of representing an inescapably sensible vision; one that is inherently logical and as such, not easily addressed by its opponent. The ad homs and generalizations against it are predictable and never disappoint. Liberals get angered by the "socialist" tag; a perfectly legitimate ideological challenge, when the best they seem to muster is "wing-nuts" and "poop-butt stinky face". Only an occasional valid challenge like Palin or... racism. Thing is, I'm one of those Northern-bloc Republicans who have grown tired of the racist tag. I think Republicans need to face this antiquated BS head-on and get back to the solid messages of hope and change.

While there is certainly room for the Republicans to be more effective at reaching out to the black community, there are more pervasive issues here that are beyond their control. In this I agree that only time will heal this wound as it is still open due to perception- not reality. I'll call it the "Carlton effect". The black Republican represented as kind of a Carlton; a sell-out or "acting white". It's no wonder any guy interested in having a social life and/or a girlfriend would avoid this birth-control like the plague. The Democratic party has taken the black vote for granted and the failure of this philosophy can be witnessed in the most liberally governed cities in this country. Terms like "soft bigotry of low expectation" resonate for a reason OAW. Low expectations in scholastic achievement, achieving your own job, your own food, your own healthcare, your own home, your own success in the free market...

While I certainly appreciate the overall message of Civil Rights legislation, by 1964 it had been watered down substantially. Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements, but did not abolish literacy tests sometimes used to disqualify African Americans and poor white voters. Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; but exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole. Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation, but did not authorize busing as a means to overcome segregation based on residence. Authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination. Outlawed discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people and creates an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to review complaints, although it lacked meaningful enforcement powers. IMO, blacks earned their own civil rights, no one handed it to them. Needless to say, we've discussed all this before and on much of it we simply cannot agree. Democrats have made their life's-work an attempt to take credit for racial progress that occurred in the Republican party and they've succeeded. Democrats feel blacks owe them their vote and most blacks are not interested in being a sell-out.

- When Republicans lift blacks up, they are tokens. When Democrats do it, it's genuine.
- When Republicans criticize race-baiting and vote their conscience, it's racism. When Democrats author policy that assumes blacks need white hand-outs, it's genuine. Never mind actually measuring the success of the ideal, if it means well and it sounds good it is good. Never mind that the government is essentially replacing fathers and that while entitlements continue to increase, there has been no appreciable decrease in wealth disparity.
- Immigration policy reform and enforcement? Racist of course, never mind the fact that we're all losing critical jobs, medical services, and means-tested entitlements to illegal immigrants.

The fact of the matter is that there is only so much reaching out you can do for 13% of the population. Republicans will continue to try and it will generally continue to fall on deaf ears until the populace opinion perpetrated by geriatrics with bills to pay subsides and until being a Conservative or Republican is no longer uncool. Blacks will continue to be exploited by the Democratic party and sound governance will continue to be racist. Why? The jilted lover is not interested in the nerd with horn-rimmed glasses and pocket protectors. If the nerd wants love, he'll have to continue wooing nerds. That's love and survival man. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Mar 27, 2010 at 10:53 AM. )
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Regarding Reagan's alleged act of hatred against the black community for his "hate" speak in Philadelphia, Miss.; you'll recall he was vying against Jimmy Carter for the Presidency OAW. Carter barely squeaked out a victory in Mississippi in 1976 and that State was among the most hotly contested at that point in 1980. The Reagan campaign found this particular venue attractive from a June 1980 National Geographic magazine article titled “Mississippi’s Grand Reunion at the Neshoba County Fair” and thought this would be a good and captive audience. That's politics, not racism.

Know where Reagan went the next day? He hit a plane from Mississippi to Manhattan to address the Urban League. ... but let's look at the words of the hateful Mississippi address;

I don’t believe the stereotype, after what we did, of people in need who are there [on welfare] simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there’s no way they can get away. And they’re trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves. I believe there are programs like that, programs like education and others that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax sources to fund them, and let the people [inaudible]... I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, [applause] I will devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions that properly belong there.
I imagine we are simply going to disagree on this one my friend. Bear in mind I never claimed Reagan's address in 1980 was reminiscent of a KKK rally or anything like that. Far from it. The issue is whether or not Reagan's decision to address that particular audience in that particular location and use a phrase like "state's rights" was an example of dog-whistle politics given the historical significance of that location?

dog-whistle politics: also known as the use of code words, is a term for a type of political campaigning or speechmaking which employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience. The term is invariably pejorative, and is used to refer both to messages with an intentional subtext, and those where the existence or intent of a secondary meaning is disputed.
So here's the deal. The original meaning of "State's rights" from a denotative standpoint refers to the political powers that the states possess in relation to the political powers held by the federal government. But from a connotative standpoint this term has other implications. Specifically, a state's "right" to engage in slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. Why? Because historically speaking that was the agenda of the vast majority of the people who cited "state's rights" as a major issue for them. Some even fought a Civil War over it and broke out the dogs and fire hoses on demonstrators because of it that last time I checked . So when I (and a lot of other people from all walks of life) hear that term being bandied about that's the first thing that comes to mind. And that's NOT the fault of those who have that perception. It's the fault of those who co-opted the term to mask their desire to oppress people who did not look like them in the language of "constitutionality".

So was Reagan's use of this term completely above board? Or was it a calculated "wink and a nod" appeal to the racist sentiments of elements within the southern, white electorate? For me, if that was an isolated incident I'd be inclined to say the former. But again ... there's a pattern here. It's straight out of the GOP's Southern Strategy playbook ... and Reagan wasn't the only one. Again, I'll reiterate what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said about it ....

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.
USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

So I'll give your move to delve deeper into this particular Reagan incident an "E for effort" (as an informative aside and diversionary tactic ), but it certainly doesn't address the fundamental issue that I laid out previously and that I laid out again right here. What say you on the GOP's Southern Strategy ... Lee Atwater's acknowledgement of it in 1981 ... and Ken Mehlman's repudiation of it 2005?

Originally Posted by ebuddy
What a jerk! I notice this Reagan in Miss. thing comes up in election cycles. Reagan is criticized for adhering to the ideal of State's Rights, but of course Jimmy Carter gets a pass on his 1976 campaign rhetoric opposing government programs that seek “to inject black families into a white neighborhood just to create some sort of integration.” adding “I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This rhetoric would earn him some sound rebuke from Jesse Jackson; "“a throwback to Hitlerian racism.” or Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson; “Is there no white politician I can trust?” Excellent article here. Jimmy Carter, where to start man... , but we'll let him opine on why race is relevant to Obama's opposition today.
Fair point on Carter. Most definitely. The same can be said for when Clinton took his shots at activist Sista Souljah during the 1992 campaign during a convention of Rev. Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. A lot of people, including Jackson, found his remarks to be unwarranted, out of the blue, and disrespectful. Especially on Jackson's "turf". But other's thought it was a calculated move designed to appeal to white voters to show them that he wasn't "beholden" to Jackson. I suppose the question then becomes why did Reagan and Carter feel the need to go there in order to win in the South? And what does that say about the country?

Originally Posted by ebuddy
While there is certainly room for the Republicans to be more effective at reaching out to the black community, there are more pervasive issues here that are beyond their control. In this I agree that only time will heal this wound as it is still open due to perception- not reality.
Again ... we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the Southern Strategy was "real" or if this was just some "figment of the imagination" of the African-American community over the last 5 decades.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I'll call it the "Carlton effect". The black Republican represented as kind of a Carlton; a sell-out or "acting white". It's no wonder any guy interested in having a social life and/or a girlfriend would avoid this birth-control like the plague. The Democratic party has taken the black vote for granted and the failure of this philosophy can be witnessed in the most liberally governed cities in this country. Terms like "soft bigotry of low expectation" resonate for a reason OAW.
Now the whole "acting white" thing is most definitely a topic for another thread my friend. All I will say now is that ....

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Low expectations in scholastic achievement, achieving your own job, your own food, your own healthcare, your own home, your own success in the free market...
... aren't particular to political affiliation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
- When Democrats author policy that assumes blacks need white hand-outs, it's genuine. Never mind actually measuring the success of the ideal, if it means well and it sounds good it is good. Never mind that the government is essentially replacing fathers and that while entitlements continue to increase, there has been no appreciable decrease in wealth disparity.
Now on this I have to take issue with the "assumes blacks need white hand-outs" part. You see underlying a comment like that seems to be this sense that black people don't pay taxes too. As if welfare or food stamps or social security or Medicare or whatever "entitlement" program you want to name is something that only whites pay taxes into ... and blacks are the sole beneficiaries. When the fact of the matter is that none of these programs were "targeted" at the black community ... none of them are utilized primarily by the black community ... and the all of them are paid for with tax dollars from everybody, including the black community.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
The fact of the matter is that there is only so much reaching out you can do for 13% of the population. Republicans will continue to try and it will generally continue to fall on deaf ears until the populace opinion perpetrated by geriatrics with bills to pay subsides and until being a Conservative or Republican is no longer uncool. Blacks will continue to be exploited by the Democratic party and sound governance will continue to be racist. Why? The jilted lover is not interested in the nerd with horn-rimmed glasses and pocket protectors. If the nerd wants love, he'll have to continue wooing nerds. That's love and survival man. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
"Don't hate the player, hate the game." .... . Now that was funny!

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 29, 2010 at 06:11 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 12:39 PM
 
I believe some were interested in "proof" that one of the Tea Baggers spit on Rep. Cleaver. A new video has surfaced and In the clip below, Rep. Cleaver is seen walking with his colleagues when he suddenly moves his head back (at 0:13 seconds) and swipes at his face. After exchanging a few words with a protester, he continues walking while wiping his chin (at :030 seconds).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmP4G...=youtube_gdata

(If for whatever reason the link doesn't work just search YouTube with "cleaver tea bagger spit" and select the clip posted by doublegrandma...

Or perhaps it was all just an act?

Also, many are claiming that at 2:12 seconds into the clip someone can be seem prominently waving a neo-nazi flag along the line of this:





OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 29, 2010 at 01:09 PM. )
     
Trekkie
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 02:04 PM
 
When I first saw that video yesterday my personal opinion was that Rep. Cleaver wasn't spit on intentionaly, just the guy yelling at him was shouting way too vigorously and disrespectfully. I'm sure we've all heard the phrase say it, don't spray it. I'm no body language expert but the way Cleaver proceeds to wipe himself tells me that an entire side of his face just got sprayed with spittle. Not a pleasant experience by a long shot but what can you expect when walking right by a guy yelling at the top of his lungs? Furthermore, all the people claiming neo-Nazi flag are simply those seeing what they wish to see. If you actually took a minute to review the footage with healthy skepticism you'd see that said flag is actually the state flag of Tennessee, vertical blue stripe and all. Beginning at the 2:15 mark of the video you linked OAW you can get a good view of it as the wind causes the flag to unfurl.

Flag of Tennessee
-Trekkie
To point, click and boldly go...
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Trekkie View Post
When I first saw that video yesterday my personal opinion was that Rep. Cleaver wasn't spit on intentionaly, just the guy yelling at him was shouting way too vigorously and disrespectfully. I'm sure we've all heard the phrase say it, don't spray it. I'm no body language expert but the way Cleaver proceeds to wipe himself tells me that an entire side of his face just got sprayed with spittle. Not a pleasant experience by a long shot but what can you expect when walking right by a guy yelling at the top of his lungs? Furthermore, all the people claiming neo-Nazi flag are simply those seeing what they wish to see. If you actually took a minute to review the footage with healthy skepticism you'd see that said flag is actually the state flag of Tennessee, vertical blue stripe and all. Beginning at the 2:15 mark of the video you linked OAW you can get a good view of it as the wind causes the flag to unfurl.

Flag of Tennessee
You may be right regarding the flag. Like I said "many are claiming" this to be a neo-nazi flag. Personally, I can't tell one way or the other because the picture quality of the video doesn't lend itself to seeing things in the background very clearly. In all fairness, I can't imagine it taking until now for someone to have commented on the flag if it was neo-nazi. Regarding the spitting incident which is the main point ... I'm just posting this clip in response to those who seemed to think this was all just a figment of Rep. Cleaver's imagination. Whether he was spit on intentionally or not ... the video pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of that argument.

OAW
     
Jim Paradise
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 03:24 PM
 
Upon a few more views, seems like they are stars.
( Last edited by Jim Paradise; Mar 29, 2010 at 05:52 PM. )
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 03:25 PM
 


I'm pretty sure that's not the flag of Tennessee. I don't know what it is. I've just gone through enough neo-nazi flag images trying to identify it that I'll probably be getting a visit from the FBI, with no luck. I'm not sure what that flag is or what it represents.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
DrTacoMD
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
I'm pretty sure that's not the flag of Tennessee.
Actually, I think it is:





At this zoom level, it seems pretty clear.
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 03:52 PM
 
Weird. That's one of those things that now I can't unsee it.
     
DrTacoMD
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Weird. That's one of those things that now I can't unsee it.
Yeah, I think the temptation was to see it as dark blue on a white background, but once you convince your brain to see it the other way, it's really obvious (and impossible to ignore). Like the whole two-faces-versus-vase optical illusion.
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 04:55 PM
 
Hmmm......

Given these latest shots of the flag it seems to me that the flag is definitely NOT the Tennessee State Flag. That flag is RED ... and the symbol has a BLUE background with 3 WHITE stars.

But the flag in this latest shot is clearly RED .. and the symbol has a WHITE background with 3 BLACK triangular looking things.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by DrTacoMD View Post
Yeah, I think the temptation was to see it as dark blue on a white background, but once you convince your brain to see it the other way, it's really obvious (and impossible to ignore). Like the whole two-faces-versus-vase optical illusion.
You know .... I think you are right. That's really weird!

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
So here's the deal. The original meaning of "State's rights" from a denotative standpoint refers to the political powers that the states possess in relation to the political powers held by the federal government. But from a connotative standpoint this term has other implications.
That's unfortunate. There's nothing racist about state's rights. It's isolated and demonized for political expediency. I'm not going to abandon an entire ideology because a sect of morons bastardized it for their own agenda almost 50 years ago.

So was Reagan's use of this term completely above board? Or was it a calculated "wink and a nod" appeal to the racist sentiments of elements within the southern, white electorate?
Yes. Given the explanation of the site's selection, the tempered, compassionate, and disciplined speech given there, and his movement the very next day, I think the accusation is a stretch founded on a comfortable, familiar type of partisanship. I've also long thought you play far too fast and loose with the racism tag.

So I'll give your move to delve deeper into this particular Reagan incident an "E for effort" (as an informative aside and diversionary tactic ), but it certainly doesn't address the fundamental issue that I laid out previously and that I laid out again right here. What say you on the GOP's Southern Strategy ... Lee Atwater's acknowledgement of it in 1981 ... and Ken Mehlman's repudiation of it 2005?
What say me? Meh, runnin' an idea up a flagpole to see how it works. It didn't. It never will. There is nothing a Republican can say or do that will make a large dent in the black voting bloc. Not for decades. This softball, back and forth, throw the liberals a bone nonsense got them voted out of office. They need to stick with conservatism and maybe a few blacks will secretly vote for them while wearing their (D) lapel pin for the exit poll.

Fair point on Carter. Most definitely. The same can be said for when Clinton took his shots at activist Sista Souljah during the 1992 campaign during a convention of Rev. Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. A lot of people, including Jackson, found his remarks to be unwarranted, out of the blue, and disrespectful. Especially on Jackson's "turf". But other's thought it was a calculated move designed to appeal to white voters to show them that he wasn't "beholden" to Jackson. I suppose the question then becomes why did Reagan and Carter feel the need to go there in order to win in the South? And what does that say about the country?
Reagan and Carter should not even be in the same sentence in the context of racism. I think this is patently absurd with all due respect. The country today is one that voted a black man into the highest office in the land. They are in the process of comprising his plummeting approval ratings today. What does this say of "same as always" politics?

Again ... we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the Southern Strategy was "real" or if this was just some "figment of the imagination" of the African-American community or the last 5 decades.
I never said it was a figment of their imagination. I'm saying they've been duped, hoodwinked, bamboozled and the government continues to exploit their vote to run amok. The racist dixiecrats tried to run on the Republican ticket and the northern constituency would see them back to the Democratic party where they belonged. This is indeed what happened. I see no evidence that this strategy hadn't been used just as liberally by Democrats. Phil Berg (D) was the founder of the whole "birther" BS, Hillary's campaign manager with statement on Obama's assumed cocaine use, Bill's insensitive remark regarding Al Sharpton's campaigning legacy, etc... the examples are too numerous to mention, but Democratic racism doesn't matter as much to the black community. I'm sorry it just doesn't. You seem to be saying that perception is reality and I'm telling you that's the perception of a great many Republicans. There's no reason they should waste their time. It just doesn't do them any good. They need to be conservative and get votes. If the black community is on board, they're on board. If not, they're not.

Now the whole "acting white" thing is most definitely a topic for another thread my friend. All I will say now is that ....
Certainly it's not exclusively Republican or Democrat, but one philosophy has been founded upon the notion of low expectation in all those areas, the other has not. It plays to it from time to time, but with no gain in the black voting bloc that's for sure.

Now on this I have to take issue with the "assumes blacks need white hand-outs" part. You see underlying a comment like that seems to be this sense that black people don't pay taxes too. As if welfare or food stamps or social security or Medicare or whatever "entitlement" program you want to name is something that only whites pay taxes into ... and blacks are the sole beneficiaries. When the fact of the matter is that none of these programs were "targeted" at the black community ... none of them are utilized primarily by the black community ... and the all of them are paid for with tax dollars from everybody, including the black community.
This was a quick hit on a more general sentiment you expressed regarding Justice Thomas; "Well he consistently votes against the interests of the black community (and the poor, etc...)" I don't think policies that seek to give handouts to capable people is in the best interests of the black community (or the poor or anyone else for that matter). I think the failures of this philosophy are evident on a host of levels.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game." .... . Now that was funny!
ebuddy
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 06:41 PM
 


Okay, after watching the higher quality video, I can see it's white on blue now. Weird, it really did look like it was a dark colored emblem on a white field. Good eyes. I do concede it is indeed the flag of the State of Tennessee.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 09:38 PM
 
We should just say it's a nazi flag and go with it.

Slander's okay as long as you disagree with their political views.
ebuddy
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2010, 10:06 PM
 


I'm pretty sure it's this symbol.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2010, 12:40 AM
 
A guy with snake arms?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:53 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,