Nobody seems to dislike Barrack Obama. The conservative pundits that I read have questioned his experience and rejected his liberalism, but find him to be a likeable person.
Now, how do liberals treat black conservatives?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
The head of racism will show itself if Obama gets near...don't be deluded in thinking that all the racism in America suddenly disappeared...you can hear racist comments at any bar or factory in Racine on any given day.
Barack Obama has taken the high road along this campaign trail and people are therefore forced to consider what he says because they cannot find anything, other than his newness on the national scene to criticize. John Edwards has been crisp and sharp in his statements. Since clear points of view are rewarded by opposition and worse, I worry for the safety of both of them. I hope they both emerge. This is no time for status quo staying the course. I don't care anything about the Republicans because this administration is so bad, so greedy, so lawless, so undemocratic. We need a total revolution in Washington.
Ughh! This post is about the treatment of black liberals by conservatives vs the treatment of black conservatives by liberals. It is not a post declaring the end of racism.
CK, yes Barack Obama is taking the high road and this is refreshing. But a politician taking the high road, while perhaps rare, does not stop others from taking unfair potshots at them. My point is that Obama has been treated fairly by conservatives, indeed better than liberals would treat a black conservative. Do you agree or do you disagree with my point?
I knew where you were going with this Denis. The very first thing that came to mind was Clarence Thomas, the second was Condoleezza Rice, the third was Bill Cosby.
And I can't stay on subject either because of the nebulous labels. The first 'conservative' that came to my mind, too, was Clarence Thomas. And Denis of course! As to whether Obama is being treated with respect I cannot say because I'm only paying occasional attention right now. He certainly has a lot besides young people going for him and since this country really needs a broader voting base I say this is very healthy. JFK was able to expand the voter base, too. Denis seems to believe that liberals are nasty and that conservatives are polite but I remember the Clinton Monica mess and those conservatives like Henry Hyde were so ghastly and hypocritical and they dragged the country where it need not have gone and they did it with such meanness that the process has not recovered until perhaps now with the presence of fresh voices like Edwards and Obama....
So if Condolezsa is a conservative, then my definition for a conservative is someone who lies and manipulates and takes us into unnecessary wars and spends billions of dollars and has a short memory. Clarence Thomas is Clarence Thomas and he is no Thurgood Marshall thank you very much. Now there was a remarkable leader. Obama reminds me of him because he can bridge the great divide. Edwards can too.
Senator Robert C. Byrd (Kelptocrat, WV), referred to as the “conscience” of the Democratic controlled Senate, participated in the KKK during World War II, holding the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops. I think that pretty well sums up the Liberals view of the African-American community: Vote for us or we’ll burn a cross on your lawn.
I think the disproportionate number of African-Americans living in the lower socio-economic classes frames this discussion. Blacks that rise to a higher level generate resentment among their former peers. This is hardly unique to blacks however, as for years all types of groups have resented former members that left the old neighborhood for other opportunities. What is unique with blacks in America is the exceptionally long period their numbers have been concentrated in the lower classes - most of this explained by historical facts. Perhaps what we have witnessed is concentated resentment towards blacks that left the poltical neighborhood. What distresses me more is that white liberals seem to get a free pass to pile on black polticians they disagree with.
Obama seems to be achieving something I had hoped the moderate Colin Powell would have done earlier, proving that most of white America is prepared to vote for the right black man. The black population has been marginalized for too long - and there is plenty of blame to go around for that, including the so-called victims - no nation can afford to waste 10% + of their population. As black America becomes relatively smaller demographically and politically (as the Hispanic population grows), they need to recognise the opportunities America affords them today and aplaud the success of black politicians of all political persuasions. Jackson and Sharpton might be decent group advocates or union reps, but Rice, Powell, and maybe Obama have the ability to bring us all together as long as we're all giving more weight to the individual's accomplishments and message and not focused on their race and party affiliation.
Also framing this discussion is the one parent family, often headed by a woman. And workers who exist without benefits which is certainly a growing subgroup of americans. And the many many children living in a world of poverty who have doors slammed in their faces beginning at puberty. If a politician comes along that connects with the above, there will be a new deal and he or she will find support awaiting them and maybe America will morph into the land of opportunity once again.
The Black "leadship" will not allow change.
They have too much invested in the politics of class envy and hate.
It is all the white man's fault
or it tye jews Fault (more from the 80's then today)
play much better then educate and job training.
The Sharpton's and Jacksons can not aloow that to happen
Colt should be taking remedial English classes rather than organizing film festivals or incoherently blogging.
Eric, you do make some interesting points and for the most part i agree.
Pertaining to Denis' original post about the treatment of black conservatives. To that i'd say, some of them get voted to office, some don't, as is the case with liberals.
Way to say nothing at all CT.
Instead of conservative/liberal labels what about 'humanitarian'. That is what the citizens of our country need now is a humanitarian. Not a religious zealot, not a worshipper of material wealth, not a follow the party line man/woman. Is Obama a humanitarian? Is Edwards a humanitarian? At least both of them are aware that the middle class has shrunk while the rich have become cartoons of greed and that you can't solve our problems by jailing everyone who is not successful.
CK, so you want to do a way with labels like conservative and liberal and replace them with humanitarian and what else? Obviously you think Obama and Edwards qualify as humanitarians, but what of Bush or Romney or anyone else that would currently be lumped into the conservative category? Why not get it over with change the labels to good and bad? Edwards, Obama et al would be good, everyone else bad.
Dear Denis,
Thurgood Marshall was a humanitarian. Desmond Tutu is a humanitarian.
It is silly for you to suggest that Romney or Bush are humanitarian because they are not.
I am not afraid to say that I believe George Bush (both of them) have been disaster for America. In my opinion the Republican trickle down philosophy is BAD because it doesn't work. I use words like 'good' and 'bad' and words like 'love' and 'hate' because good, bad, love and hate exist and we all know what they mean and we all rationally and emotionally experience them.
It is not silly to wonder about Obama and Edwards because they are actively reaching out to the people in this country whose humanity is at risk by escalating costs for health care, living, education, etc. When Edwards came to Racine (twice) during the last national election he chose to speak about the issues that face the community. Obama, like I have said, reminds me of Thurgood Marshall. I can hope and I can believe, also qualities humans share.
The current system of government is based on material wealth at the expense of everything else.
Some of us are insulated from the ravages of this materialism but more and more of us are not. This is what a Romney and a Bush do not understand because they are not humanitarians.
One thing we all have in common, I think, is that we are all made of the same stuff. All of us.
Ubuntu.
Change is coming.
"In my opinion the Republican trickle down philosophy is BAD because it doesn't work. I use words like 'good' and 'bad' and words like 'love' and 'hate' because good, bad, love and hate exist and we all know what they mean and we all rationally and emotionally experience them."
Apparently, even though we all know what they mean, you still apply bad to one ideology and good to another. So what have you accomplished? That's right, nothing. Ooops, I mean (by your definition) everything.
"The current system of government is based on material wealth at the expense of everything else."
So are you actually suggesting that America is the problem, because of President Bush and Democracy?
"One thing we all have in common, I think, is that we are all made of the same stuff. All of us."
I can assure you that this is not the case.
"Change is coming."
That's like saying trees are wood.
Change is inevitable. The political pendulum has always swung back and forth. It would be naive to believe that this cycle is different than any other. Once again, blaming President Bush (or any other politician) for America's state of materialism is giving him way too much credit for the problems in this country. Materialism and humanitarianism are both characteristics of the "individual".
CK,according to my dictionary, a humanitarian is "someone who actively promotes the welfare of the human race." Are Bush and Romney actively promoting the welfare of the human race? Yes, I think they are. Now, they may be promoting it in a way that you think won't work or that you don't understand, but they are promoting the human race. But certainly you don't see it that way, so what does that make them, or me for that matter, in your eyes. If an activist is not promoting the welfare of the human race, they must be doing the opposite, which would make them bad or evil people that must be stopped. As an aside, I think it is usually unfair to suppose that you have insight into someone elses motives. But anyway CK, I think you are helping me demonstrate the problem. You see, it is primarily a phenomenon of the left, or among liberals, or of annointed humanitarians, that their political opponents are seen as bad people as opposed to being merely mistaken. What must we do with bad people? Well, we must stop them. And this explains the renewed interest in the misnamed Fairness Doctrine or boycotting threats etc... Conservatives are bad and must be stopped. Now, most conservatives are a bit more charitable with liberals in the sense that they tend to think that liberals are mistaken, naive, etc... but not evil. Conservatives tend to think that criminals, terrorists etc... are the bad guys that must be stopped, while liberals tend to be easy on those bad guys but tough on conservatives. To make a long story short CK, I think you are wrong, but not evil.
Denis, I said trickle down philosophy is bad, not that the Georges are bad (although I think one is devious and one is dumb).
It really puzzles me when people react to words like good and bad and love and hate because they do exist....
A genuine humanitarian would not have initiated an invasion into Iraq.
I didn't call Bush a 'bad' man. But I do think that he has been a very bad president and it is my nature as a human being to have a point of view.
I didn't call Bush evil although I do believe evil exists just like love and hate and good and bad.
We have had this blog discussion before, Denis, and I maintain that there is a time for love and a time for hate....
When you return to your own box regarding liberals and conservatives and try to stick everything that I tried to say into that box you are twisting the discussion - interpreting it to your advantage and really not hearing what I am trying to express. This is what we humans do....we fail more than we succeed in our efforts at communication. The important thing is to try and, Denis, you do try, as do I.
Anon, I don't get it. You are made of the same stuff as other human beings unless perhaps you are alien and then maybe you have three fingers and huge eyes or look like a bug. Maybe I will crash the Ivanhoe bash and look for a big bug with slippery fingers.
And, yes, Anon, there are bad ideologies, lots of examples in history of bad ideologies.
By 'current system of government' I was not referring to our constitution or our bill of rights, I was referring to trickle down economics and the devaluing of participatory deomocracy by the overvaluing of profits for the few. Obviously you do not agree with me but isn't that why we are blogging here on this cerebral plain?
It is the human condition to live with unknowns. We are not gods. We don't understand. Thats why we talk to each other, right?
CK, you are invited to the Ivanhoe so crashing is not necessary. Well, now I am a bit confused. If GW and Romney are not humanitarians, and humanitarians are good, it follows that GW and Romney are not good. But that is not what you are saying I guess.
Re humanitarians and Iraq, we may or may not succeed in Iraq, but if the Iraqi people can put together a stable state with our help, and put the tyranny of Sadam behind them, can it still be said that Bush is not a humanitarian for having helped make this happen?
And lastly, I am not trying to twist your words to my advantage, rather, I am trying to understand your point of view. I hope to see you on Thursday.
Since this discussion moved slightly to Good vs. Evil; I'd like to chime in. As CK has equated Good = Humanitarian, and connected this to Conservative vs. Liberal, (sorry you don't like the labels, Liberals seldom do), If you believe the Government using it's power and ability to confiscate the wealth of those who earned it, as more "Humanitarian" I must disagree, The best you can do for all of your fellow humans here and around the world, is to remove the stranglehold of Government from their neck. Conservatives (or so called Evil), prefer to define "Humaritarianism" as how many fellow humans don't need the Government to be successful, independent and prosperous! If we leave more wealth in the hands of those earn it, we can expand wealth and Charity to more people around the world. (It works every time its tried).
George Bush, at the behest of that great "humanitarian" organization, The United Nations, enforced the mandate they "resolved". (see 1441). W's actions will result in more freedom and independence for woman, more than any single act worldwide in 50 years. The regimes that will topple and the freedom for individuals, (especailly woman), around the world over the next generation, will show George Bush was a greater humanitarian than any other single individual of our generation.
Furthermore W's position on Stem cells has turned out to be the best possible solution, as no more baby "humans" will need to be harvested for your stem cell panacea. Seems rather "humanitarian" to me.
Furthermore no one has done more in the US in the past 50 years to improve the economy of Africa and assist with AIDS research, and treatment of disease. Again seems pretty Humanitarian to me. Even his original plan to fight the war in Iraq, was designed to minimize the casualties of the Iraqi people, And no war in US history has been as humane as this one, even US and coalition casualties are historically low.
CK the difference I see is you look at baby humans as a parts department or a medicine chest, I look at it as a human baby. I think that makes me more "Humane". You look at Saddam as a man who kept the Iraqi's in order, I see him as a tyrant who treated his subjects as his own playthings to be raped, arrested or murdered at his whim. Perhaps you see UBL as a "freedom Fighter" standing up against American Imperialism, I see him as a man who stones and rapes woman and treats them as property, an resents American's ability to behave pretty much as we desire. UBL thinks his version of Govt. is the correct way the Govt. decides what "compassion" is, (see the Taliban), and occasionally it involves chopping off of heads, and public stoning's in the middle of a Soccer field.
Maybe I am unclear but which one is more Good or Evil???
See you Thursday?
Urban Pioneer, thank you for taking the time to type up what the rest of us bad, evil, uncompassionate, wealthy, materialstic, greedy, hateful, lying, manipulative, anti-humanitarian, racist, sexist, deluded, undemocratic, religous zealot, war loving, country invading, aliens were thinking.
I forgot climate destroying.
Hey Urban Pioneer, don't tell me what I think. I bet you wear a big hat.
The difference here CK? UP explained to you the difference between his thinking and your thinking. Whereas, you are telling others what to think.
I bet you have a hard time finding a hat.
Dear CK;
It is awfully presumptuous of you to assume I wear a hat at all. How dare you!!!
(Size 8, BTW)
I did post a well thought out "screed" which was in response to your's and other's postings on this page. Since you have assumed the high moral ground of "Love" and "Good" and "Humanitarian", not to mention every posting on this subject you have embraced every liberal, and bashed every conservative. Maybe it was a leap of faith that you would support Abortion; Embryonic Stem cell research, and Surrender in Iraq, and the usual liberal/ Love/ Good/ blah blah blah. Besides if you read carefully I tried to insert "If you" and "Perhaps you"; thus not putting words in your fingertips:^)
The point in my post was to demonstrate that there is more than 1 way to be "Humanitarian", You don't get to claim the Higher Ground just because you say it is so. I love when Liberals demonstrate their "humanity" and Love by giving Money to the beggars on my street, and then complain that there are so many people who need help. Their "Compassion" enables the Beggar to not ever get past the free hand-out.
Teach a man to Fish, don't just give him a Fish.
If your remark was to indicate that I was full of myself because I took the time to lay out a full case. I would submit to you that had I left even 1 hole in the arguement your visceral "humanitarianism" would poke holes thru me!! Liberals would likely immediately scream Racist, Bigot, etc.
So I do hope I'll see you'll tonight, I'll spend the whole day deciding which Hat I should wear;^).
And thanks Cal again for your support.
Obviously I express what I think.
Denis, while I doubt that Urban Pioneer and Caledonification are black I guess you would say they are conservative? If these two fine fat heads are conservatives, then I think even though they are most probably not black they certainly puncture your premise that conservatives are receptive to listening to other points of view, are more polite, etc. Uban Pioneer gives me indigestion.
And thanks Cal again for your support.
My pleasure, really.
while I doubt that Urban Pioneer and Caledonification are black I guess you would say they are conservative?
I'm not sure who is more confused. You, for writing this or me for trying to make sense of this. Are you suggesting that if either of us are black, then we could not be conservative? If I am to understand your logic, in order to understand how liberals treat black conservatives and to comment on this thread, then I would have to be a black conservative. Are you a black conservative? By the way, if I am a black conservative, does that make me bad or good?
If these two fine fat heads are conservatives, then I think even though they are most probably not black they certainly puncture your premise that conservatives are receptive to listening to other points of view, are more polite, etc.
Excuse you, but receptive to listening and receptive to agreeing are two entirely different things. Regarding politeness, you are the one who started in with the fat head comments.
Uban Pioneer gives me indigestion.
There's an old saying, "God makes you uncomfortable when it's time for you to change".
You likely the change? No?
Ubuntu
First:
Dear Katie; Take a Tum's.
Second: I didn't know or care what race you were. I woke up in America today, and U can be a White Liberal, or Black Conservative, or a Pinko Commie if U want too.
3rd: I was born in Detroit, and have lived in Flint and Pontiac, MI; 3 of the Blackest cities in the Mid-west, I currently drive an 8 year old vehicle, I drink 3 times a week, and have smoked 1 1/2 packs of smokes a day. My Aunties and Uncles were all either Welfare Sponges, or Union employees or spent time in Prison, some were even Drug dealers. I don't live with my Babies Momma;
and I live on Racine's Near South side, where most of my neighbors are Black.
Am I Black or White or Pinko??
Now I re-read my comments which you failed to address except to rat me out to Denis, and complain of your stomach irritation; and I see no point where I was intolerant of your views. I responded to your views. I understand the purpose of this forum is to discuss issues, and I have done so with perhaps a bit of humour, but with conviction and honesty, and Frankness. If you want touchy feely, watch Oprah.
As one of the 2 resident
"Fine Fat Heads", (thanks for the promotion, your Grace!), I have listened to and read everything you wrote on this topic, and have read much of your contribution's to this blog over the last year or so. I have only recently decided to "write back". I have been polite, I am not yelling at you, I do try to use little quip's and perhaps a biting Humour to keep it light.
Methinks you doth protest too much. How Sharptonian of you!
(That was an example, in case you missed it:^).
As for politeness:
Thank you for tolerating my humble opinion,...I'm sorry swollowing the truth hurts your tummy......and.......Your Welcome.
Dear Katie, I enjoyed meeting with you tonight. You seemed to have recovered from your heartbrurn, and that makes me feel less evil:^). I liked the seating chart, with Good, evil, good, evil....
I hope you have a better understanding of my sense of humour. Not to say that I don't say what I think, but a spoon full of....
So I look forward to many happy debates with you, and I also hope that Obama wins the nomination, so we can finally tell the Clintons to SHUT UP and GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!
We don't no stinking Leaches, from Arkansas, (this goes for you too Huckabee).
So I'm predicting Romney vs. Obama in Nov 08. What do y'all think
?
I'm thinking Huckabee vs. Obama. Don't hold me to that tho'.
I don't think the country wants to go back in time so I think Obama will emerge and maybe Edwards. But I don't see Romney emerging.
Post a Comment