Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know many... my brother in particular, since our other ("adopted") brother is gay and we love him dearly. I'm a straight woman myself, and will fight for their rights until there's nothing left to fight. See, I can't stand when anyone is suppressed or mistreated, especially for something they cannot change and which does not hurt anyone else. I'd think coming from a "historically suppressed group" yourself you would understand, and find it sad that you do not.
Why especially for something they cannot change? Isn't freedom of thought an inalienable right? I don't see that any differently than race or sexual orientation. If your ideas do not hurt anyone else, why should it be more okay to be oppressed or mistreated over them than it is to be oppressed or mistreated over your skin color? I'm not trying to say you claimed it was okay to discriminate against someone over opinions. I'm just saying why "especially"? Don't you think the very first amendment in the bill of rights is freedom of speech for a reason? I should think that's even more fundamental and basic than skin color or orientation. That's the freedom to think and feel as one wishes.
You could be right, but I don't see any evidence of this occurring. Now I'm not a politician or a strategist or anything of that sort, but certainly nothing like that is happening at my level. At my level people are actually frustrated with the whole racism thing because we're tired of being called that when we simply aren't racist. We talk about economics, foreign policy, personal freedom, stuff like that. Nobody cares about skin color. Everyone I know liked Herman Cain and Allen West. I planned on voting for Cain before he dropped out of the race, and would vote for Condoleezza Rice for President if she ran. I supported Star Parker. I like Walter Williams very much. I loved the speech Ben Carson made at the prayer breakfast. And I cannot even express the level of respect and admiration I have for Thomas Sowell. I don't think there is any living person who has contributed more to American political and economic thought than he has. He is on the same level as the founding fathers of our nation in my mind. I support none of these people because they're black, nor because they "act white" or whatever liberals might say. I support them because of their ideas.
Ben Carson is the only reputable person mentioned from your rather short list of black conservatives, and actually, he doesn't have any party affiliations. That's what I like most about him.
Also, contrary to what you believe, conservatives use race all the time. One only needs to tune in to FOX NEWS to catch a glimpse. I'm not sure which is worst, CNN, FOX or MSNBC. I cancelled all of them!
Quote:
I agree. And I think race definitely has something to do with that. I don't think it's racism, though. There just isn't any debate about them as white people. They are in with everyone else when the poor are discussed or when welfare is discussed. There's just nobody saying they are where they are because of being white, so there's no need to counter that. There isn't a whole lot of discussion about hispanics as hispanics outside the immigration issue either.
Here's the thing... Repubs appeal to poor whites, by making them feel as though, they are the party that opposes social programs, and anything else that is typically branded under the broad spectrum of "minority entitlements." The irony is, the raw numbers suggest that whites make up the bulk of welfare recipients, so in essence, the repubs actually get poor whites to vote against the very programs that they primarily consume. Sad indeed.
Quote:
I don't think that's it. It's because there's nobody around trying to excuse their behavior because of their white skin. There's no debate over whether those people are what they are because of their skin color or not. It's not people giving them a pass because thy're white - it's the exact opposite. Nobody's giving them a pass so there's just nothing to talk about. Both liberals and conservatives agree that trailer trash are trash. There's no debate there.
Wealthy repubs view poor whites as the "other." The reality is, they don't even acknowledge their existence until votes are needed. No attention whatsoever is given to the plight of poor/working class whites, because again, wealthy repubs simply do not care about this population.
Notice a pattern: Wealthy libs view poor blacks as the "other." The reality is, they don't even acknowledge their existence until votes are needed. No attention whatsoever is given to the plight of poor/working class blacks, because again, wealthy libs simply do not care about this population.
I have pretty strong beliefs, but I do not believe that human beings are trash, simply because they are poor.
This speaks volumes about conservatives and libs, both feel the same way about the indigent.
Quote:
I see it as liberals pitting whites against blacks, regardless of rich or poor. Republicans just don't care about skin color. They did in the 60s and I admit that. But it's 2013 now. We don't care about that anymore. Black, brown, white, or yellow just doesn't matter.
Ha HA. I'm sure you are familiar with the Willie Horton Ad. There are countless other examples, but this particular ad is key to understanding how repubs mobilize their white base. They primarily appeal to whites overall fear of blacks.
This is a classic strategy that is used by repubs. Appeal to white fear and the votes will roll in.
No, they aren't. That's just liberal propaganda. The Tea Party was formed while Bush was president to protest against Bush, precisely because of corporate bailouts. That is a dirty little secret that Democrats don't like. But it's true. I know, because I was there. Establishment Republicans or neocons are often for those things. The grassroots conservatives, the libertarians and constitutionalists and fiscal conservatives, that whole wing, are completely against corporatism. House Speaker Boehner fired 3 Republicans just a few months ago from their committee assignments precisely because they wouldn't go along with the establishment line. Republicans are united against Democrats but within the party we are deeply divided between the establishment Republicans and the limited government Republicans.
This country was changing for the better during the end of Bush's last term. People were out in the street, protesting and mobilizing, but then something awful happened. A charming young candidate (backed by the same elite who put Bush in office) came along promising wonderful tales of hope and change, and poof, all of the protesters disappeared overnight. Again, both parties seem to be working in concert to ensure that NO real change ever occurs.
Quote:
The only thing that is said about blacks is that we wish blacks would wake up, realize the Democrats are just milking them for votes and not doing anything substantial to help them, and come over to our side so we could address the real problems, and get poor blacks jobs and education instead of just monthly checks that do nothing but keep them in poverty.
Libs use the same spiel. Let me get this straight, LOL you're going to give poor blacks jobs and an education, yet you can't even do that for the poor whites within your party now? LOL
Let's get real. There are NO jobs for those who do not have the skill sets required by employers. Our economy is no longer based on a manufacturing model, therefore those without the requisite skills are (unfortunately) left behind.
If a person wants a job, more than likely, they will have to create their own, and if they are unable to, based on limited skills and/or education, they will simply join the ranks of the unemployed. Any party who promises jobs, jobs jobs, (think about hope and change) is nothing more than a party composed of snake oil salesmen.
Again, the same strategies, different names.. same ideology.. Conserves and Libs = LEFT and RIGHT Side of the same coin.
Btw, nice (read: stupid) addition to your post... I'm a jerk for saying SF isn't a racist area, as the OP is trying to say? Or am I a jerk for pointing out that other places are more known for intolerance? I'm not a native Californian, anyway, and find your attitude more "jerky" than mine (especially given your past posts). So to be called that by the likes of you is actually a compliment.
You don't have any reading comprehension skills do you?
I never said you were a jerk.
I said people in "flyover" country think Californians are jerks.
And what's all this talk about "native" Californians. You can't be a Californian if you aint born there?
And to be called "more jerky" by you (given your past posts) is actually a compliment.
I am using Whitaker's recent experience in a very liberal area of NYC (a block away from Columbia University) to highlight patterns that are very typical of white liberals, to show that their basic thinking with respect to blacks, is really no different than white conservatives.
Many blacks speak out against white conservatives, but most seem to be very comfortable supporting white liberals. I'm perplexed, because both seem to be about the same, in terms of their views and treatment of blacks (in the collective sense).
The only people that think New York is all liberals are people who have never been to New York.
Travel outside your subdivision and you might actually learn that all types of people live in all types of areas.
You don't have any reading comprehension skills do you?
I never said you were a jerk.
I said people in "flyover" country think Californians are jerks.
I can read just fine...
"And then you wonder why people in flyover country think Californians are jerks" = your words would lead people to believe Californians are jerks, i.e., you are sounding like a jerk.
I'm not stupid, so don't try to turn my own insult back at me - it's not working, LOL.
Quote:
And what's all this talk about "native" Californians. You can't be a Californian if you aint born there?
I'm a Californian now, my point is just that I haven't always lived here... I am originally from Maryland, also lived in Oregon & PA, so my views have come from a variety of influences & surroundings. That is all I'm trying to say, so you can stop making this into a "Californian thing."
Quote:
And to be called "more jerky" by you (given your past posts) is actually a compliment.
"And then you wonder why people in flyover country think Californians are jerks" = your words would lead people to believe Californians are jerks, i.e., you are sounding like a jerk.
I'm not stupid, so don't try to turn my own insult back at me - it's not working, LOL.
And your words would lead people to believe that you think folks from Kansas and Alabama are racist. And I'm not stupid. That's exactly what you meant. And you know it.
You insulted me? lols. Didn't notice. If you wanna make a point insulting people aint the way to do it. It's kinda childish.
And then Californians wonder why people from Ohio think they are d*uche bags?
Why especially for something they cannot change? Isn't freedom of thought an inalienable right? I don't see that any differently than race or sexual orientation. If your ideas do not hurt anyone else, why should it be more okay to be oppressed or mistreated over them than it is to be oppressed or mistreated over your skin color? I'm not trying to say you claimed it was okay to discriminate against someone over opinions. I'm just saying why "especially"? Don't you think the very first amendment in the bill of rights is freedom of speech for a reason? I should think that's even more fundamental and basic than skin color or orientation. That's the freedom to think and feel as one wishes.
Okay, maybe "especially" was used too vaguely... I think freedom of thought/speech/opinions/etc is to be equally respected and protected, at least in the legal sense.
I guess what I'm saying is that I understand judging someone based on their chosen behaviors or opinions, whereas I don't understand intolerance against something that can't be changed. A gay person can no more change their orientation (even if they abstain from sex) than a Black person can change their skin color, so intolerance against EITHER of these shouldn't be supported. And while I do think people should be free to their opinions, once those opinions move into legislating inequality, I will no longer sit back and say "it's cool, that's just your opinion!"
Nope, you missed my point again! I never said those states were "full" of racists, just that I doubt SF & NYC are overall more racist than "some small (note I said SMALL) town in *insert state*." Yes, I see how that is speculating to some degree, but that's why I said DOUBT - as opposed to KNOW. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I still doubt SF is more racist overall than most small towns in any state.
I've lived here a long time now, and have rarely witnessed blatant intolerance. Why do you think so many people move here from other states? Almost everyone I know is a non-native, myself included, and in some cases they specifically came to SF/CA to escape bigotry.
I don't find much racism where I am. People tend to identify each other as fellow members of the town more than they do members of a race. We all live the same lifestyle pretty much no matter what race you are. Now I would say there's probably more intolerance for sexual orientation differences here. But not race.
And your words would lead people to believe that you think folks from Kansas and Alabama are racist. And I'm not stupid. That's exactly what you meant. And you know it.
You insulted me? lols. Didn't notice. If you wanna make a point insulting people aint the way to do it. It's kinda childish.
And then Californians wonder why people from Ohio think they are d*uche bags?
Good day, sir.
I'm not a sir, so do you generally refer to (or IMPLY) ladies as d*uchebags, jerks - oh, and morons, as you once called me in a rep point? That's not very gentleman-like, now is it?
I have no opinion about Kansas or Alabama, and since you STILL don't get it, I was referring more to SMALL TOWNS than anything. I could have just as easily mentioned "some small town in Oregon," which is why I said those states were randomly picked. Why on earth would I have specific opinions about those two states in particular? Weird, to say the least.
Have a nice night too, but just once I'd like to see a post from you that doesn't engage in name-calling. When you do accomplish that, I will concede that you aren't the childish one between us.
I am using Whitaker's recent experience in a very liberal area of NYC (a block away from Columbia University) to highlight patterns that are very typical of white liberals, to show that their basic thinking with respect to blacks, is really no different than white conservatives.
Many blacks speak out against white conservatives, but most seem to be very comfortable supporting white liberals. I'm perplexed, because both seem to be about the same, in terms of their views and treatment of blacks (in the collective sense).
Your whole premise is flawed. Whitaker wasn't stopped by a neighborhood; he was stopped by an individual. Unless you have proof that the person who initiated the confrontation is a white liberal, all we can do is laugh at your illogical and strained theory.
The doctor prescribes Preparation-H for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
