[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Trickle-down economics, for one.

Any better ideas? I don't see the poor folks really moving anywhere regardless of the economic policy do you?

As my housemate is fond of saying, it's the same as rich folks p***ing on your shoes and telling you it's raining.

Rich people are evil. I'm surprised they even told you it was raining. What if the "rich people" voted for a (D). Are they okay?

Obama will be a kind of leader.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Any better ideas? I don't see the poor folks really moving anywhere regardless of the economic policy do you?

Something that works? Something that takes into account our modern globalized world where additional company revenue doesn't necessarily result in domestic expansion and job creation?

The middle class is what it is all about.

[BadKosh]

Yeah, more than the stroke of a pen to circumvent the constitution... Think..."Fairness" Doctrine. Tamper with the 1st amendment, control free speech, AND free enterprise. Where were the Conservatives on NPR or Pacifica when it was n place LAST TIME? The Mainstream media is speaking in one ignorant, left leaning voice. Where is their responsibility to the public? Opinions stated as fact IS NOT NEWS.

[chris v]

I brought up Lumumba to raise a point and ask a question, which no one has answered. Are there people in the US, or ore specifically, on this board, who honestly hope that Obama will be assassinated in a military coup and replaced with an absolute dictator? I'm having trouble fathoming Lumumba's name on that list in any other terms, considering that Lumumba was prime minister for only 10 weeks.

It's pretty jarringly horrific if that's what it's doing up there.

[vmarks]

I do not wish for the assassination of any elected US official. I do not believe anyone else here does either.

The only coup in US history was when Democrats violently overthrew elected Republicans who happened to be black, in Wilmington, NC. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/189...ry/511596.html

We don't need or wish for another.

I really had not drawn the conclusion you have, given that the poll contains Reagan, Blair, and Kennedy. Now, you could suggest that there were attempts on Reagan and Kennedy (unsuccessful, successful) but I'm ignorant of any attempt on Blair.

I had solely considered the poll in terms of leadership styles, policy positions, and forms of government.

[The Crook]

Ah, yes, the ugly racism of conservative southern Democrats.

I'm glad this election finally relegated their Republican descendants to electoral obscurity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Ah, yes, the ugly racism of conservative southern Democrats.

I'm glad this election finally relegated their Republican descendants to electoral obscurity.

One might see a connection between white voter turnout for McCain and racism, while ignoring the 95+% African-American turnout for Obama. Of course, I do recognize there are cultural differences and the fact that African-Americans have representation in the highest office in the country is one of the only good things to have come from an Obama victory IMO.

Regardless of whether or not analysts with the New York Times will tirelessly seek to connect conservatism with racism, I believe conservatism aligns more closely with the traditional values of African-Americans. I expect an entirely new surge of African-Americans with a louder voice and potentially the only voice of opposition to the policies of an Obama Administration. They will in fact be helping the next strong conservative candidate. Assuming one should present him/herself. I'm waiting, with arms open wide; to welcome them into the fold of common sense.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

One might see a connection between white voter turnout for McCain and racism, while ignoring the 95+% African-American turnout for Obama.

Democrats, black or white, always get obscenely high voting percentages from blacks.

Obama got pretty much the same amount of white vote, nationally, as Democrats typically get. Except in the south. That's the key.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Regardless of whether or not analysts with the New York Times will tirelessly seek to connect conservatism with racism, I believe conservatism aligns more closely with the traditional values of African-Americans. I expect an entirely new surge of African-Americans with a louder voice and potentially the only voice of opposition to the policies of an Obama Administration. They will in fact be helping the next strong conservative candidate. Assuming one should present him/herself. I'm waiting, with arms open wide; to welcome them into the fold of common sense.

I think that's right to a certain extent, but it's getting way ahead of ourselves. The black vote will fragment at some point, I'm sure. Most likely the Democrats will become "victims" of their own success: achieve equality for non-whites, and when that's no longer much of an issue, lose some of the more socially conservative black voters as a result. That would be fine by me.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Where do you get this from?

The Belgians wanted that separation (although the Belgian government never officially supported the secession). The west supported it because the would be PM was anti-communist.

And the violence didn't "spread there". It started because large parts of Katanga didn't support Tshombé.

Massively lies here not backed by ANYTHING. The Belgians had no power to ask for Katanga to accede. It was Lumumba's death squads that can be blamed for Katanga not wanting to be under Lumumba's bloodthirsty rule.

And you claim the West supported it? What evil joke is this you're making up? JFK had to turn a blind eye to it to appease the Kremlin, and the UN forces who massacred their way across Katanga were made up of some western troops.

It's obvious to me you're one of these people who go around spreading lies to further hurt the image of the West. You are excusing Lumumba and his death squads because you're a totalitarian sympathiser. Hence, everything you've ever said in a discussion thread.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Ah, yes, the ugly racism of conservative southern Democrats.

I'm glad this election finally relegated their Republican descendants to electoral obscurity.

Democrat policy is just as racist today as it was then. If you want a society that I'd based on equality, that is colorblind, you have to stop using race as a consideration in admissions, in hiring, in public school assignment. I understand that the lure of votes from making one race more equal than all others is appealing to Democrats. Hopefully someday they'll move beyond these practices.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Democrat policy is just as racist today as it was then. If you want a society that I'd based on equality, that is colorblind, you have to stop using race as a consideration in admissions, in hiring, in public school assignment. I understand that the lure of votes from making one race more equal than all others is appealing to Democrats. Hopefully someday they'll move beyond these practices.

Honestly, would we have reached this point in American life where a black president could be elected if it weren't for affirmative action and the measures and ideology you dismiss as "racist?" There are inequalities that have and will perpetuate themselves regardless of whether or not they are systemetized in law as they used to be under segregation. I think the same is true of economic inequalities today.

We can either ignore these inequalities and shrug our shoulders, saying "the system is fair" when it is obviously not, or we can take positive steps to try to rectify those inequalities in order to create a world that is colorblind and where opportunities do exist for all people, instead of one that pretends to be colorblind and open by disregarding the reality of how privilege and opportunity actually operate.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Any better ideas? I don't see the poor folks really moving anywhere regardless of the economic policy do you?

What about a tax structure that encourages cooperatives and corporations that maintain a sane ratio of CEO to worker pay? Look at the history: Real income has grown nary a bit in a generation. Meanwhile the income gap between the richest Americans and the rest of us has continued to grow geometrically. Whatever complaints we might have about the construction of the metrics employed, the fact that CEO to worker pay rose from something in the neighborhood of 25 to 1 at the beginning of the 70's to something above 250 to 1 today indicates that there is something happening. Even if these projections are wrong by half, that's still a huge shift. The fact that is coincides with a stall in Real Income growth and that widening wealth gap demonstrates pretty clearly that we are living through a period of class exploitation. What happens if we allow this exploitation to continue?

I will quote, yet again, my favorite line from The Good Earth. The old Chinese saying goes, "When the rich grow too rich and the poor grow too poor, there are ways..."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Honestly, would we have reached this point in American life where a black president could be elected if it weren't for affirmative action and the measures and ideology you dismiss as "racist?" There are inequalities that have and will perpetuate themselves regardless of whether or not they are systemetized in law as they used to be under segregation. I think the same is true of economic inequalities today.

We can either ignore these inequalities and shrug our shoulders, saying "the system is fair" when it is obviously not, or we can take positive steps to try to rectify those inequalities in order to create a world that is colorblind and where opportunities do exist for all people, instead of one that pretends to be colorblind and open by disregarding the reality of how privilege and opportunity actually operate.

I agree with both you and vmarks. I think that maybe some of this sort of legislation was a necessary stop-gap measure and bridge to equality, but they were only intended to be a means to an end - an end just as vmarks has described.

We can debate whether we are at that end yet, but at some point we need to simply boldly decide that we are, and that it's time to stop hiding behind the discrimination card, and it is time to stop discriminating. I'm not completely convinced that we are quite there yet (on many days I actually think that sexism is a greater problem than racism), but it has gotten close enough that I can respect both arguments.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree with both you and vmarks. I think that maybe some of this sort of legislation was a necessary stop-gap measure and bridge to equality, but they were only intended to be a means to an end - an end just as vmarks has described.

We can debate whether we are at that end yet, but at some point we need to simply boldly decide that we are, and that it's time to stop hiding behind the discrimination card, and it is time to stop discriminating. I'm not completely convinced that we are quite there yet (on many days I actually think that sexism is a greater problem than racism), but it has gotten close enough that I can respect both arguments.

I think you're right. We likely are at a point where we don't need affirmative action based on race. What we do need, though, is a comprehensive strategy to wage war on poverty and to address the concentration of wealth in a few hands, which is kind of the one inequality to rule them all.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I think you're right. We likely are at a point where we don't need affirmative action based on race. What we do need, though, is a comprehensive strategy to wage war on poverty and to address the concentration of wealth in a few hands, which is kind of the one inequality to rule them all.

Yes, and we need to stop discriminating against gays, because I definitely do not think that there is equality with them. I know that saying derogatory things about gays is just common parlance, we even see much of this in this lounge and it is pretty much accepted, but I don't think anybody can honestly say that it is easy being gay. You either are very private about it, or you swim upstream. I'm undecided what the effect of being gay is as far as being able to find a job of equal pay and many other rights that were fought for by other groups (with the exception of marriage, which is pretty clear), but if nothing more they are forced to live in a society where homosexuality is assigned a very negative stigma.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Democrat policy is just as racist today as it was then.

I love it!

(1) It's Democratic policy, for those not into name-calling. It's not like I called you guys "wingers" or anything to provoke that.

(2) That affirmative action is based on race (as well as sex) does not make it "as racist" as Jim Crow. What a wild equivalency. We all know it's a remedial measure to correct past discrimination. I would argue that those who want to continue the status quo are guilty of structural racism, which is way more far-reaching than any negative effects from affirmative action.

[linger]

I don't see him being any of the above. I hope he is more of a bringer together than a divider. I hope now that elections are over, it shouldn't matter what letter is next to your name. He spoke of even hiring out from his party for jobs. That would be a start. I at least hope he keeps his word. I've been burnt before.

[linger]

BTW now that "The Man" is black. Who do we blame things on? That and doesn't this sorta make affirmative action not needed? If Obama can in America, get to the HIGHEST point in office. Without the help of handouts based on race, wouldn't that mean that America no longer needs these programs? He would also be the man that could do it as well. And not be called a racist. I hope this is a time for a change. A real change. Not just a skin color one. Maybe I am hoping too much I guess.