Why Do Black Conservatives Scare Liberals?

[red states rule]

In November, there could very well be three new Black conservatives elected to office

In Maryland, Lt Gov Michael Steele may be elected to the US Senate

In Ohio, Sec of State Ken Blackwell has a good chance to be the next Gov

In Pa. Lynn Swann is in line to defeat the current Gov Ed Rendell

In every case, these three men have been subjected to hate filled racists attacks, from the left

I would like to know, why do black conservative scare liberals? Why do liberals, who champion their party as the only party for blacks, attack black conservatives with racist insults?

 

[Gunny]

Why Do Black Conservatives Scare Liberals?

Because they don't blindly follow the handout givers around looking for a freebie. They actually get jobs, think for themselves, and distance themselves from the aforementioned bums selling their votes for insignificant freebies.

 

[red states rule]

Because they don't blindly follow the handout givers around looking for a freebie. They actually get jobs, think for themselves, and distance themselves from the aforementioned bums selling their votes for insignificant freebies.

But it is something to watch the comments libs make toward them. Token, uncle Tom, a slave serving their master, and the others

Libs say Republicans are racists, but it is the Dems who are the REAL racists

 

[Annie]

But it is something to watch the comments libs make toward them. Token, uncle Tom, a slave serving their master, and the others

Libs say Republicans are racists, but it is the Dems who are the REAL racists

I agree with you. It's not just 'blacks', but any conservative minority. It drives them nuts. I think it has to do with what they perceive to be their votes 'bought and paid for...'

 

[red states rule]

I agree with you. It's not just 'blacks', but any conservative minority. It drives them nuts. I think it has to do with what they perceive to be their votes 'bought and paid for...'

2 members on Chucky Schumers staff illeagly obtained a copy of Mr Steeles personal credit report in a lame attempt to slime him

On Meet The Press, Howie Dean would not even say he was sorry for their actions

Libs will let anything slide by when one of their own does it

Let any Republican get a black libs credit report and all hell would break loose

 

[Annie]

2 members on Chucky Schumers staff illeagly obtained a copy of Mr Steeles personal credit report in a lame attempt to slime him

On Meet The Press, Howie Dean would not even say he was sorry for their actions

Libs will let anything slide by when one of their own does it

Let any Republican get a black libs credit report and all hell would break loose

I know, I posted on that back during the elections. Look at the smut they write to Michelle Malkin, which I've also posted on numerous times. They are hateful and prejudiced, no doubt.

 

[red states rule]

I know, I posted on that back during the elections. Look at the smut they write to Michelle Malkin, which I've also posted on numerous times. They are hateful and prejudiced, no doubt.

Not to mention Clarence Thomas. Why do liberals think Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee are articulate geniuses but Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Alan Keyes and Dr. Walter Williams are dolts?

 

[nt250]

That's typical of the left. Look at the racist things that have been said about Rice and Powell. Who was it who compared them to house slaves? Harry Bellafonte?

And where the hell were all the feminists when all these women came forward with stories of Bill Clintons lewd behavior? Didn't one of them call Paula Jones "white trash" or "trailer trash", something like that?

Liberals are very quick to overlook bad behavior in people who are on their side, and demonize anyone who has the nerve to even bring it up.

 

[Gunny]

But it is something to watch the comments libs make toward them. Token, uncle Tom, a slave serving their master, and the others

Libs say Republicans are racists, but it is the Dems who are the REAL racists

Well of course they have to demean them in their usual attempt to villify anyone who doesn't toe the party line. Simplistic tactic: attribute to them less than sterling qualities, imply they are traitors to their race (whtever the Hell THAT means), in an attempt to attack their legitimacy.

I think it's hillarious as Hell, and rather demeaning and racist to attack a specific race because of their success.

 

[insein]

The reason is simple politics. Blacks and other minorities are pawns to Democrats. On the surface they appear to care about the social welfare of minorities by their words and laws that they pass. In reality they have systematically created a dependent society which they exploit in exchange for a guaranteed vote. If you keep a group of people dumb enough and then give them free handouts to make them slightly above being poor, then they will see you as the savior and hand over their votes.

The key is to not have any examples of success without the system. That is why you see the most vehoment attacks from Democrats on conservatives are when the conservative is a minority or specifically black. This ruins their 50 year system by showing people that it can be done without becoming modern day slaves to a political party. So the spin cycle is always in full rotation for Black conservative success' in order to keep damage control on the ignorant masses. Some will start to get it though and thats their fear. Little by little more blacks will wake up and realize what is happening. That is the Democrats worst fear. That is why you see such insane hatred when the Republican candidate is a black.

 

[Dr Grump]

Liberals are very quick to overlook bad behavior in people who are on their side, and demonize anyone who has the nerve to even bring it up.

Unlike conservatives who do no such thing, right? :rotflmao:

 

[Redhots]

Blacks and other minorities are pawns to Democrats.

And what are they to the Republicans?

 

[Hobbit]

And what are they to the Republicans?

People

 

[CharlestonChad]

Because they don't blindly follow the handout givers around looking for a freebie. They actually get jobs, think for themselves, and distance themselves from the aforementioned bums selling their votes for insignificant freebies.

ahahaha, I thought you were serious for a minute :rotflmao:

 

[musicman]

ahahaha, I thought you were serious for a minute :rotflmao:

Ah - at last - someone with the courage to come right out and say it! Conservative blacks can't possibly be thinking for themselves! I admire your forthrightness, Chad. But, forget about a career in politics; you have to be able to hide your hatred, intolerance, and contempt better than that. In other words, you have to lie. Don't change, man - I like you better this way.

 

[jillian]

Ah - at last - someone with the courage to come right out and say it! Conservative blacks can't possibly be thinking for themselves! I admire your forthrightness, Chad. But, forget about a career in politics; you have to be able to hide your hatred, intolerance, and contempt better than that. In other words, you have to lie. Don't change, man - I like you better this way.

You do know that what Gunny said is a bunch of garbage, right?

 

[musicman]

You do know that what Gunny said is a bunch of garbage, right?

No. Actually, it's my considered opinion - based on a lifetime of observation - that the protections of victimhood evaporate instantly when one is judged guilty, by liberals, of ideological heresy. One forfeits any protected status normally afforded him by virtue of his race, sexual preference, or any of the other cherished qualifications for sainthood, if he dares step outside leftist orthodoxy. Tammy Bruce comes to mind. And Condoleeza Rice. And Randy Shilts. No insult is too cruel - no attack too hysterical - for the only objective, immutable truth in all of liberalism is political expediency. Find yourself on the wrong side of expediency, and you'll learn what persecution really is - no matter who you are. It is a mean, intolerant religion.

 

[jillian]

No. Actually, it's my considered opinion - based on a lifetime of observation - that the protections of victimhood evaporate instantly when one is judged guilty, by liberals, of ideological heresy. One forfeits any protected status normally afforded him by virtue of his race, sexual preference, or any of the other cherished qualifications for sainthood, if he dares step outside leftist orthodoxy. Tammy Bruce comes to mind. And Condoleeza Rice. And Randy Shilts. No insult is too cruel - no attack too hysterical - for the only objective, immutable truth in all of liberalism is political expediency. Find yourself on the wrong side of expediency, and you'll learn what persecution really is - no matter who you are. It is a mean, intolerant religion.

My point was that Gunny lumps people into these generalized pools. He confuses ALL democrats with the furthest reaches of the left. He thinks every opinion which doesn't jive with his is "trolling". I've learned that from my observations during my relatively short time chatting on this board and his comments to me directly.

But to get to your point. I think that people have to be judged on their merits. And the moment someone is judged lacking who happens to be a person of color on the conservative end of the spectrum, the RIGHT, not the left, tries to make it a racial issue. I figure I have the right to disagree with someone regardless of their color. That's what equality is.

As for dependence, I don't think anyone should be dependent and I hate systems that makes assumptions that some can't ever do as well as others. I do, however, also believe that we need to encourage and foster those programs which give people a leg up rather than a hand out.

So there ya go. Hope I hit all the bases.

 

[Annie]

My point was that Gunny lumps people into these generalized pools. He confuses ALL democrats with the furthest reaches of the left. He thinks every opinion which doesn't jive with his is "trolling". I've learned that from my observations during my relatively short time chatting on this board and his comments to me directly.

But to get to your point. I think that people have to be judged on their merits. And the moment someone is judged lacking who happens to be a person of color on the conservative end of the spectrum, the RIGHT, not the left, tries to make it a racial issue. I figure I have the right to disagree with someone regardless of their color. That's what equality is.

As for dependence, I don't think anyone should be dependent and I hate systems that makes assumptions that some can't ever do as well as others. I do, however, also believe that we need to encourage and foster those programs which give people a leg up rather than a hand out.

So there ya go. Hope I hit all the bases.

Just an aside, but the left has not been 'moderate' in throwing about accusations and it's not just the 'looney left' either:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/05/about_our_dictator/

JEFF JACOBY
About our 'dictator'

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 5, 2006

IN MANY QUARTERS it has long been taken for granted that George W. Bush is an aspiring dictator, ravenous for power and all too willing to shred the constitutional checks and balances that restrain presidential authority. Of course this kind of paranoia is routine in the ideological fever swamps . But you can hear such things said about Bush even in respectable precincts far from the fringe.

For example: When it was reported in May that the National Security Agency has been analyzing a vast database of domestic telephone records for possible counterterrorism leads, CNN's Jack Cafferty went ballistic. Thank goodness Senator Arlen Specter was asking questions, Cafferty fumed. ``He might be all that's standing between us and a full-blown dictatorship in this country."

During the 2004 campaign, Judge Guido Calabresi of the US Court of Appeals told a lawyers' conference that the Supreme Court decision deciding the 2000 election for Bush was ``exactly what happened" when Mussolini and Hitler came to power in the '30s. And ``like Mussolini," Calabresi said, Bush ``has exercised extraordinary power -- he has exercised power, claimed power for himself."

A year before, Michael Kinsley wrote in Slate that ``in terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world."

Time and again the D-word or its equivalent has been invoked to describe the Bush presidency. On issues ranging from his ``signing statements" to the treatment of enemy combatants and his defense of the Patriot Act, Bush has regularly been accused of harboring totalitarian impulses. ``We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator," wrote Jonathan Alter in Newsweek last December. Just the other day, The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner warned that the Bush administration has been ``a slow-rolling coup d'etat" but that ``people are afraid to say so."

So when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last week, Bush's reaction was easy to foretell: He would show the ruling all the respect of a monster truck rolling over a VW Beetle. No doubt he would emulate one of his predecessors, Andrew Jackson -- another polarizing president whose enemies labeled him a dictator. It would be Worcester v. Georgia all over again.

Worcester was an 1832 case in which the Supreme Court held that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on the Cherokee nation living within its borders. Its attempt to do so, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote for the majority, was ``repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States." Jackson saw the decision as a challenge to his policy of Indian removal and sided with Georgia, which refused to obey the court's ruling. What the case is best remembered for today is Jackson's withering observation that the court's ruling had no teeth.

``John Marshall has made his decision," Jackson supposedly said. ``Now let him enforce it."

Fast-forward 174 years. President Bush learns the court's ruling in Hamdan has gone against him. A five-justice majority held the military commissions created by the administration to try the Guantanamo detainees are invalid, since they were never authorized by congressional statute. The justices seem to have repudiated Bush's claim that the Constitution invests the president with sweeping unilateral authority in wartime. ``The court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground," Justice Stephen Breyer pointedly notes in a concurrence. ``Congress has not issued the Executive a `blank check.' "

Whereupon Bush says -- what? ``The justices have made their decision; now let them enforce it?" Something even more acidic? Perhaps he repeats a statement he has made previously -- ``I'm the decider, and I decide what is best"?

Not quite. He says he takes the court's decision ``seriously." A few moments later he says it again. And then comes this: ``We've got people looking at it right now to determine how we can work with Congress, if that's available, to solve the problem." There is no disdain. No bravado. No criticism. Just an acknowledg ment that the Supreme Court has spoken and the executive branch will comply.

Some dictator.

It isn't 1832 anymore. Even presidents who are aggressive in their claims of authority don't flout Supreme Court decisions. Harry Truman relinquished the steel mills, Richard Nixon turned over the Watergate tapes, Bill Clinton submitted to Paula Jones's deposition. Al Gore conceded the 2000 election. Now Bush will acquiesce as well.

For better or worse, our legal system as it has evolved makes the judiciary, not the president, ``the decider." Bush presses his claims forcefully, as he is entitled to do -- but only to a point. We remain a nation of laws, not of men. For all the promiscuous talk about dictatorship, was that ever really in doubt?

 

[ZoSo Pryde]

I would like to know, why do black conservative scare liberals?

A very good question; and an easy one to answer. Many liberals find it very easy to not try to understand the reasoning behind "conservative" arguments such as opposing affirmative action (I have placed the word conservative in quotation marks to make the point that opposing affirmative action is not technically a conservative sentiment, it is merely a belief in true fairness).

Rather these liberals (I am being careful to not chuck all liberals into the same category) find it much more fun to simply call you a racist if you believe this. You don't oppose Affirmative Action because it is putting "Two wrongs make a right" into action. You don't oppose it because it a putting a "sins of the father" punishment into action. You don't even oppose it because it simply doesn't work. You oppose it because you hate members of the black race with a passion and you want them to die.

A great argument for these liberals to throw out instead of debate. But sometimes a problem occurs. Sometimes the conservative isn't a white guy!! All of a sudden the easy argument's in the bin... can't call the guy a member of the KKK!!! What to do?

Simple. Call him a self-hater and a race-traitor. Everything is all right again.