hawkeye10 wrote:..... once a man has adopted the identity of a black man, with all of the history and customs that come with that identity, we are then to pretend like he never did? Don't you figure that is going to be perceived as disrespect??
Sorry hawk. I don't show respect for someone based on their skin color or the heritage they claim.
Respect is earned by one's actions and words.
real life wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:..... once a man has adopted the identity of a black man, with all of the history and customs that come with that identity, we are then to pretend like he never did? Don't you figure that is going to be perceived as disrespect??
Sorry hawk. I don't show respect for someone based on their skin color or the heritage they claim.
Respect is earned by one's actions and words.
You are out of step these days, real life. Get with the program.
hawkeye10 wrote:Setanta wrote:
This is a classic blind racist point of view. How about we treat all men (and women) as men (and women) without regard to whether or not they are notionally black or white? This has to be one of the most idiotic statements on race which i've seen posted here.
So what you are saying is that once a man has adopted the identity of a black man, with all of the history and customs that come with that identity, we are then to pretend like he never did? Don't you figure that is going to be perceived as disrespect?? I don't follow your logic.
My point was that these individuals cloak themselves with all kinds of specialness, and then when the mood strikes them they say " I am just like you" No, if you are just like be then don't keep claiming to be special. You'll have to point out the idiocy of my statement. Don't see it as being racist either. I am the one claiming that we put way too much concern onto race.
Once again, you apparently are completely incapable of seeing the inherent racism in your remarks. My ancestors were Irish. I am proud of my Irish heritage. I am happy to tell anyone about that. This does not alter that i consider that i am entitled to be treated with that same consideration that all the citizens of a republic have a right to claim, without reference to superficial descriptions.
I suspect that you are assuming that all white folks are the same, and that all black folks are different. You are making black people "the other" by definition. Which individuals do you claim "cloak themselves with all kinds of specialness?" Are you suggesting that this is descriptive of all people who are described as being black? Your comments reek of racist resentments.
eoe wrote:Ragman wrote:Oh..I thought of at least one exception to the right wing racist pack. Ronald Reagan wasn't a racist. I'm sure there are many more too. McCain's not.
How do you know Ronald Reagan was not a racist. Or McCain? What did either do to convince you?
What makes you think they ARE racists?
Mainly, as with case with Reagan, if you follow his early personal and political history such as when he was the head of SAG he clearly demonstrated support for racial equality. See the 'Early Life' paragraph :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
I don't buy this "everyone is racist" thing at all. This takes away the very real problem and justifies real prejudice.
Racism (or sexism) means people who hold to, or advocate, attitudes that are harmful to a diverse society.
There are some people who are racist (or sexist) and there are many people who aren't racist.
These terms really do mean something.
Ragman wrote:eoe wrote:Ragman wrote:Oh..I thought of at least one exception to the right wing racist pack. Ronald Reagan wasn't a racist. I'm sure there are many more too. McCain's not.
How do you know Ronald Reagan was not a racist. Or McCain? What did either do to convince you?
What makes you think they ARE racists?
Mainly, as with case with Reagan, if you follow his early personal and political history such as when he was the head of SAG he clearly demonstrated support for racial equality. See the 'Early Life' paragraph :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
But Reagan also went through the South calling for "states' rights." That has a very specific meaning in the South concerning the "rights" of states to resist segregation. I don't think Reagan was ignorant of that meaning when he swept up the Southern vote. Reagan was also very slow to react to the growing AIDs situation considering it a concern only for homosexuals. I don't think you can say Reagan was completely clean.
BBB
Don't get me started on my opinion of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan myth has been carefully nurtured to crown him as a great president. In fact, he was one of the most destructive to the middle classes in modern history.
BBB
engineer wrote: ... Reagan was also very slow to react to the growing AIDs situation considering it a concern only for homosexuals. I don't think you can say Reagan was completely clean.
Who was saying that he was completely clean? Certainly not I. teh topic and this discussion was about racism. What you're discussing broadens the discussion to Discrimination at large.
The fact that he was slow to respond to AIDs crisis and hear the issue with an open mind..well, he was not alone in our gov't and our society at large. He certainly was not without a fair amount of blame there. Was it a reflection of his bias against gays? No way I can tell, but can you? I wonder if he was really in touch with the seriousness of the issue back then and comprehended it..and if he did, was his resistance connected to a bias against gays?!
BBB: I'm not a Reagan fan by any means. He was not alone in his tax-em-up attack on the middle class...but with the exception of Clinton..that's been a trend of our gov't for the last 30 years. The middle class in US is footing a disproportionate amount of the tax burden and has received a minimal amount of services.
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Don't get me started on my opinion of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan myth has been carefully nurtured to crown him as a great president. In fact, he was one of the most destructive to the middle classes in modern history.
BBB
Yes, he undid all the work Jimmy Carter had put in creating high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment.
What are you smoking, Bee?
Re: BBB
real life wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Don't get me started on my opinion of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan myth has been carefully nurtured to crown him as a great president. In fact, he was one of the most destructive to the middle classes in modern history.
BBB
Yes, he undid all the work Jimmy Carter had put in creating high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment.
What are you smoking, Bee?
Typical "real life" horseshit. Carter inherited double-digit interest rates and inflation from Gerald Ford, who suffered the inevitable consequences of Nixon's fiscal policies, and the end of the Vietnam War. In fact, Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed in 1979, and he did his job well enough that Reagan re-appointed him in 1983. The word at that time was that Ronnie Ray-gun wanted to get rid of Volcker because he was appointed by a Democrat, but his financial boys started shitting themselves, so Volcker was re-appointed.
Moron.
Thanks BBB and Set. I thought I was in some kind of time warp and had the former presidents twisted and confused in my head.
My recollection of Ronnie Ray-gun is a little different from some here today.
When Ray-gun's administration was embarrassed by the high unemployment rates--as American capitalists began exporting industrial jobs to third world countries without all those annoying employment standards and environmental standards laws--they came up with a classic dodge. They started counting members of the armed forces in the employment rolls, and Hey Presto ! ! ! . . . the unemployment rate "dropped" due to statistical manipulation. Ronnie was a moron, too--but his PR boys were good.
...and all this relates to the submerged racism and the Ametrican right wing ..exactly how?
A further history lesson for those in the "I love Ronnie" camp, who think they can blame all ills on Carter. In a
New York Times article on financial policy in the present Bush administration:
Quote:Back in the early 1970's, with both high inflation and slow growth, Nixon's economic challenge may have been even more intractable than Mr. Bush's. So, with his re-election in jeopardy, Nixon and his Treasury secretary, John B. Connally, bludgeoned both the Congress and Federal Reserve into a truly radical experiment. Congress passed wage and price controls and the Federal Reserve simultaneously increased the money supply.
The gamble was that a big jolt of money would rev up the economy while the price controls would suppress inflation. It worked, allowing Nixon to win in 1972. But success came at a huge cost. Once the price controls were removed through 1973 and 1974, all the suppressed inflation came roaring out, hitting the double digits and plaguing the second half of the 1970's. Worse, the resulting collapse of the dollar led to the 1973 OPEC ''oil price shock.'' Altogether, it was one of history's most expensive election campaigns. (emphasis added)
Source
Ragman
Ragman wrote:...and all this relates to the submerged racism and the Ametrican right wing ..exactly how?
Sometimes digressions are interesting. Reagan certainly did nothing to reduce racisim. How's that for getting back on topic?
BBB :wink:
Re: BBB
Setanta wrote:real life wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Don't get me started on my opinion of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan myth has been carefully nurtured to crown him as a great president. In fact, he was one of the most destructive to the middle classes in modern history.
BBB
Yes, he undid all the work Jimmy Carter had put in creating high interest rates, high inflation and high unemployment.
What are you smoking, Bee?
Typical "real life" horseshit. Carter inherited double-digit interest rates and inflation from Gerald Ford, who suffered the inevitable consequences of Nixon's fiscal policies, and the end of the Vietnam War. In fact, Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed in 1979, and he did his job well enough that Reagan re-appointed him in 1983. The word at that time was that Ronnie Ray-gun wanted to get rid of Volcker because he was appointed by a Democrat, but his financial boys started shitting themselves, so Volcker was re-appointed.
Moron.
Nonsense.
The prime rate when Carter took office was around 6.25%
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt
But in Dec 1980 at the end of Carters term, the prime rate was over 20%.
My point is that Reagan accomplished in his first four years a huge improvement, while Carter had made things MUCH worse.
Bee's rant about 'destroying the middle class' is baseless.
Real Life
Real Live wrote: "Nonsense. The prime rate when Carter took office was around 6.25%
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt
But in Dec 1980 at the end of Carters term, the prime rate was over 20%. My point is that Reagan accomplished in his first four years a huge improvement, while Carter had made things MUCH worse.
Bee's rant about 'destroying the middle class' is baseless."
Oh really? I suggest you go back and study the actual effect of the Reagan Administration sans the Republican Reagan sainthood attempts in changing the devastating history of the Reaganites. Mythology won't change the facts.
BBB
You have a problem, both because you are ignoring all the factors which affect economic health, and because you don't even bother to carefully read the sources you provide yourself.
According to your source, on February 3, 1981, after Ronnie Ray-gun had been inaugurated, the prime interest rate was 19.5%. Thereafter, it dropped to 17% by April, and then rose to 20.5% by mid-July, 1981. According to your source, the prime rate remained in double digits until June, 1985, more than four years after your boy Ronnie took office. If you want to claim that Ronnie fixed any mess which you intend to blame on Carter, you're going to need to explain why he dicked around for his entire first term.
But your take is shallow. It ignores that Carter inherited the economic situation from Ford, and that Ford inherited the economic situation from Nixon. I see you have nothing to say about Ford's comment on the economic situation he inherited.
