something that bothers me about the left (one of their ideas)

[jillian]

Read that part carefully, and follow the trail back to what made you quote me in the first place.

I know where the trail leads. Was just adding my own opinion to the mix.

Thing is, you implied the 22 words, which did indicate that the repubs systematically excluded blacks was the same as using the word racism.

It's not because a) they did systematically exclude blacks; and b) the reason was not necessarily racist, but pragmatic. (which doesn't make it right).

 

[Semper Fi]

Thing is, you implied the 22 words, which did indicate that the repubs systematically excluded blacks was the same as using the word racism.

It's not because a) they did systematically exclude blacks; and b) the reason was not necessarily racist, but pragmatic. (which doesn't make it right).

So why didn't Truthmatters say that as a response to my post [the "22 words" one]?

 

[jillian]

So why didn't Truthmatters say that as a response to my post [the "22 words" one]?

perhaps TM doesn't share my opinion and does think it's a function of racism. Certainly it's open to that type of interpretation, IMO.

You have to understand, from the pov of someone on my side of the aisle, when your campaign platforms include discrimination against gays, vilification of immigrants and evisceration of anti-discrimination laws, it's not difficult to put that together with exclusion of black voters and decide it is the resulf of racist policies.

Personally, I think that if Karl Rove thought the black vote would bring right-wing victory, he'd be up in Harlem driving black voters to the polls himself.

 

[Semper Fi]

perhaps TM doesn't share my opinion and does think it's a function of racism. Certainly it's open to that type of interpretation, IMO.

You have to understand, from the pov of someone on my side of the aisle, when your campaign platforms include discrimination against gays, vilification of immigrants and evisceration of anti-discrimination laws, it's not difficult to put that together with exclusion of black voters and decide it is the resulf of racist policies.

Personally, I think that if Karl Rove thought the black vote would bring right-wing victory, he'd be up in Harlem driving black voters to the polls himself.

So its a matter of "politics" and politics instead of racism?

 

[Alpha1]

Fact... the Republican party has systematically set out to exclude black voters in battleground states.

I do think that could create a perception of racism. I also think it isn't so much racism as it is politics... try to get as many of the people who vote for you out to vote and try to keep the folk who don't vote for you away from the polls.

I'm sure you can see where that might be construed as racism. On the other hand, I suspect that Democrats don't send out cars to take a lot of evangelicals to the polls... yet they would for the AARP set.

Well, well, well.....a very fair minded opinion .....

the FACT that blacks vote about 95% Democrat just might have something to do with it....and the 'perception' can't be denied....so the Dems play the race card to the hilt, as they usually do....

 

[jillian]

Well, well, well.....a very fair minded opinion .....

the FACT that blacks vote about 95% Democrat just might have something to do with it....and the 'perception' can't be denied....so the Dems play the race card to the hilt, as they usually do....

Er... glass houses, dude... want lessons on playing the race card? Go watch Tancredo's ads.

 

[Alpha1]

Er... glass houses, dude... want lessons on playing the race card? Go watch Tancredo's ads.

Ahhh...true...but one man does not a party make...

If I had the time I could dig up 5 Dims for every Repub. that plays that game...maybe more....you know it and I know it....but I'm not up for a pissing contest right now...

 

[jillian]

Ahhh...true...but one man does not a party make...

If I had the time I could dig up 5 Dims for every Repub. that plays that game...maybe more....you know it and I know it....but I'm not up for a pissing contest right now...

Well, I'd disagree... and say that the numbers are reversed. But fair enough.

 

[Semper Fi]

I'm up for a pissing match, do you know how much water I just drank?

 

[Alpha1]

Well, I'd disagree... and say that the numbers are reversed. But fair enough.

Then you're quite blind to the world around you...but as you say, fair enough....

This would be like arguing that the MS media isn't liberal...or the earth isn't round....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then you're quite blind to the world around you...but as you say, fair enough....

This would be like arguing that the MS media isn't liberal...or the earth isn't round....

Well..... Technically the Earth is NOT round.... )

 

[Shogun]

I think that there is a fair reason for conservatives finding fault with affirmative action besides being fingered as racist this side of the 1990s. 2007 is not the 80's. Certainly, there are racists that hold common views about AA but I think it is legitimate to be concerned about any criteria based on race which is observed by a government that is not supposed to favor any particular ethnicity. I applaud the benevolent motivation behind helping out a class of culturally disadvantaged people having to emerge from hundreds of years of slavery but, again, this isn't 1981 where Archie Bunker gets a laugh for a sanitized, yet specific, stereotype reference. We've been through interracial unions and have many, MANY African American leaders and success stories so that AA, in my opinion, is an outdated mode of thought. AA is no panacea impervious to valid criticism. Such criticism doesn't make one a racist.

 

[jillian]

this isn't 1981 where Archie Bunker gets a laugh for a sanitized, yet specific, stereotype reference.

True... now the right doesn't get that Archie WAS the joke...

We've been through interracial unions

Which can once again be made illegal if the right has its way and ignores the line of cases asserting a Constitutional right of privacy.

and have many, MANY African American leaders and success stories

There, I agree with you, but how many times have you read objections to something as simple as recognizing Martin Luther King, Jr., with a national holiday?

so that AA, in my opinion, is an outdated mode of thought. AA is no panacea impervious to valid criticism. Such criticism doesn't make one a racist.

It was never a good way of dealing with the issue. But eviscerating it, without putting something else in it's place that works better could set things back decades. I'm no fan of it, but there is also a difference in available opportunity that is race and poverty-based which does need to be addressed... not with bandages like "no child left behind" but with real changes.

 

[Semper Fi]

But eviscerating it, without putting something else in it's place that works better could set things back decades. I'm no fan of it, but there is also a difference in available opportunity that is race and poverty-based which does need to be addressed... not with bandages like "no child left behind" but with real changes.

Its true that getting rid of AA could set things back decades. I emphasize could. The question is, though, what institution could replace it that wouldn't be discriminatory (as AA is now) or encourage government dependency (again, as AA is now)? Methinks color-blindness is the right path to take, barring any major drawbacks.

 

[Shogun]

"True... now the right doesn't get that Archie WAS the joke... "

to some it was a joke. to others it was a public forum that mirrored their perspective on integration. My point is that we've come a long way in a couple decades and it could be time to develop a newer strategy.



"Which can once again be made illegal if the right has its way and ignores the line of cases asserting a Constitutional right of privacy."

do you really think that is going to happen? sure, blacks and women can both be thrown back into pre-suffrage days but do you REALLY think that is the direction we are headed? I don't.



"There, I agree with you, but how many times have you read objections to something as simple as recognizing Martin Luther King, Jr., with a national holiday?"

I'd bet that the amount of objection based soley on his ethnicity has exponentially decreased. Some people have fiscal reasons to oppose such. Sometimes I wish we had 365 national holidays. Besides, regardless of objection MLKjr holds a cannonized seat in our modern culture and that, alone, would have been an amazing dream for an African American in 1952.



"It was never a good way of dealing with the issue. But eviscerating it, without putting something else in it's place that works better could set things back decades. I'm no fan of it, but there is also a difference in available opportunity that is race and poverty-based which does need to be addressed... not with bandages like "no child left behind" but with real changes."

I didn't say eviscerate it (good word, btw). I said that conservatives have a valid reason beyond racism to be critical of it. In fact, it reminds me of the conflict over education. No one wants to scrap education... but HOW we educate our kids is not how they did 100 years earlier and, hopefull, won't be the same way we do 100 years from now. Fluidity. Adaptation. I say pay the kids but that is another thread. I'll acknowledge that those who benefit from AA are not out of the rut just yet.. but others have to admit that their relative success will be a reflection of their relative population in our culture. Also, considerng that the dems have a black man vieing for the dem nomination... well, it's not a college in alabama anymore. Also, can you acknowledge that SOME of these people simply don't want to ascend class and are content living the ghetto fairytale? It's real life. It happens. This is a valid concern.

 

[Angel Heart]

Republicans freed the blacks... Started the ball rolling for civil rights... They have put blacks in higher spots than the Dems...

Do I need to go on?

 

[Angel Heart]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

The Dems tried to stop the civil rights movement.

 

[maineman]

Republicans freed the blacks... Started the ball rolling for civil rights... They have put blacks in higher spots than the Dems...

Do I need to go on?

yeah. you need to explain, if republicans are still such a great party for blacks, why 85% of them vote for democrats?

The republican party of Abe Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but my guess is, the blacks in America know that the republican party of today is no longer the party of Abe Lincoln, but instead has become the party of Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond.

 

[maineman]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

The Dems tried to stop the civil rights movement.

old news. one of those "democrats" was strom thurmond, who went on to be lauded by your party long after his attempts to stop civil rights.

 

[Alpha1]

yeah. you need to explain, if republicans are still such a great party for blacks, why 85% of them vote for democrats?

The republican party of Abe Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but my guess is, the blacks in America know that the republican party of today is no longer the party of Abe Lincoln, but instead has become the party of Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond.

Thats better than being the party of George Wallace and Bobby (KKK) Byrd