Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

@okie,

Okie,

You are an idiot.

((vote this down)).

@ebrown p,

Thats your opinion, its a free country, still.
The truth hurts, doesn't it ebrown. Hitler was a Statist, as all leftists are. Only a mental midget would interpret this to mean that I am claiming all leftists are as Hitler, but obviously I am not claiming that. What I am asserting, which is the truth, is that strong Statists and Central Planning idealogues produce fertile ground for all kinds of terrible things to happen. After all, it is not an atmosphere of freedom and liberty, and no way can anyone claim that it is. I use Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Castro, Hugo Chavez, and a host of other bad apples as examples of what Statist idealogies produce.

If you plant corn, the crop will be corn. If you plant wheat, the crop should be wheat. This is only common sense. Labels and descriptions of left vs right do mean things, they stand for certain principles, there is simply no escaping the reality of it, ebrown. And although I admire George a great deal, I have also told him the same thing, as he accused me of being too simplistic by using labels and stereotypes of political idealogies, implying I suppose that some dictators or some highly socialist states can be benevolent? I am sorry if you maybe have affections for Marxism and your ox is being gored. I can't help it, I am more interested in the liberties of people and principles than I am your feelings.

In regard to George's claim about many other factors, I would concede that, and I would also say that moderately socialistic States can be benevolent to a point, but there is a point of socialism that provides a tipping point, to use Gore's term in regard to political systems, it provides a tipping point at which going further left brings about alot of pretty bad consequences in almost every case.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Okie,

You are an idiot.

((vote this down)).
[/quoteno, actually I don't think okie is an idiot, I think okie is so frightened by any thought inconsistent with his primative believe system that the is vertaully locked into rabidly defending his construction of history/reality. He's between a rock and a hard place with this thinking and there appears to be no escape. anyone claiming thaw the Tliban exhibit socialistic tendencies most likely also hears voices speaking directly to him from the radio.

0 Replies

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/identity-politics-for-white-people.php

Quote:

Identity Politics for White People

Sarah Palin delves into America’s racial conflicts:

Quote:
And that double standard is"and that hypocrisy is another reason why so many Americans are quite disgusted with the political games that are played, not only on both sides of the aisle, but in this case, on the left wing, what they are playing with this game of racism and kind of letting Harry Reid’s comments slide, but having crucified Trent Lott for essentially along the same lines[.]

I think this right here shows why it’ll be a generation or two before you see a substantial number of black people voting for the Republican Party. Here’s Palin talking about an issue which is either a pointless partisan sideshow, or else a serious complaint about race in America. But the complaint she offers isn’t a complaint on behalf of African-Americans. It’s a complaint offered on behalf of white southern racists. It’s not that it would be unfair to black people for Reid to remain majority leader rather the problem is that it would be unfair to Trent Lott. And surely it’s no surprise that white southern conservatives seem much more likely than actual black people to be making these kind of demands. The idea that white people might want to show some deference to African-Americans’ views of who is and is not their enemy and what is and is not offensive to them is inimical to the conservative project’s determination to zealous advocacy on behalf of the interests of white people.

When confronted on this, Conservatives inevitably deny that their policies, statements and actions revolve around protecting the white race and white privilege in this country (except for Pat Buchanan); however, it is quite difficult to look at any policy forwarded by modern Conservatism which is not squarely rooted in this.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When confronted on this, Conservatives inevitably deny that their policies, statements and actions revolve around protecting the white race and white privilege in this country (except for Pat Buchanan); however, it is quite difficult to look at any policy forwarded by modern Conservatism which is not squarely rooted in this.

Cycloptichorn

More total and absolute crap, cyclops. You and your ilk label the opposition to reverse racism such as affirmative action quotas and so forth as racist, when all affirmative action amounts to is special treatment and favors offered to minorities by the Democrats in exchange for votes, which essentially amounts to the slavery mindset, stay on the plantation because you are too dumb and too helpless to make it on your own, we will take care of you if you deliver us your slave labor in the form of votes and support for our socialist agenda.

Leftists have always sought out the groups that they believe will swallow their mantra of them being downtrodden and society being unjust, as a way to gain support and political power. They preach the have and have nots mantra, and unfortunately there can be alot of people that will buy the demagoguery.

What I point out is probably too stark of a truth for most liberals to handle, they simply cannot deal with the truth.

1 Reply

ok,I give up, Okie is stupid.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
When confronted on this, Conservatives inevitably deny that their policies, statements and actions revolve around protecting the white race and white privilege in this country (except for Pat Buchanan); however, it is quite difficult to look at any policy forwarded by modern Conservatism which is not squarely rooted in this.

Cycloptichorn

More total and absolute crap, cyclops. You and your ilk label the opposition to reverse racism such as affirmative action quotas and so forth as racist, when all affirmative action amounts to is special treatment and favors offered to minorities by the Democrats in exchange for votes, which essentially amounts to the slavery mindset, stay on the plantation because you are too dumb and too helpless to make it on your own, we will take care of you if you deliver us your slave labor in the form of votes and support for our socialist agenda.

What I point out is probably too stark of a truth for most liberals to handle, they simply cannot deal with the truth.

Your politicians offer money in exchange for votes, and specifically, you offer greater amounts of money to richer and whiter folks. There is no difference whatsoever in the behavior of the two parties, so that complain means nothing to me.

I repeat, once again, that your attitude is that minorities are too dumb to realize that the Dems are 'just using them.' Do you not realize the problem with this attitude; that is to say, that you are displaying an arrogant elitism towards them, a condescension, as if they are not perfectly capable of figuring out which party truly reflects their community?

Quote:

What I point out is probably too stark of a truth for most liberals to handle, they simply cannot deal with the truth.

No, what you are saying is not in fact the truth, but a lie that you and other Conservatives have convinced yourselves is true; in part because you see yourself as an oppressed minority within your own mind, and it's galling to see actual minorities get treatment that you feel YOU should be getting.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you not realize the problem with this attitude; that is to say, that you are displaying an arrogant elitism towards them, a condescension, as if they are not perfectly capable of figuring out which party truly reflects their community?

Cycloptichorn

People of all color are susceptible to demagoguery, no color or race has a monopoly on it. The fact is Cyclops, a great number of minorities do not swallow it. You will find many examples in the political scene of today, and it would do you well to read the website National Association of Black Republicans, and you will find out a great number have chosen to leave the Democratic Party's plantation.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you not realize the problem with this attitude; that is to say, that you are displaying an arrogant elitism towards them, a condescension, as if they are not perfectly capable of figuring out which party truly reflects their community?

Cycloptichorn

People of all color are susceptible to demagoguery, no color or race has a monopoly on it. The fact is Cyclops, a great number of minorities do not swallow it. You will find many examples in the political scene of today, and it would do you well to read the website National Association of Black Republicans, and you will find out a great number have chosen to leave the Democratic Party's plantation.

Statistics do not give truth to what you say here. In fact, they paint quite the opposite picture; the Republican party does not do well amongst any group of minorities, other than the rich. How do you explain the discrepancy between your rhetoric and the actual voting statistics?

You certainly won't find many examples of minorities amongst the Republican party in elected office, that's for sure.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

the most noted demagogue in all of american history was, no doubt, Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

I don't agree. He has many competitors for that position - starting with Hughey Long of Louisiana and on to Robert LaFolette of Wisconsin, and many others. Don't forget William Jennings Bryan. There are more.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When confronted on this, Conservatives inevitably deny that their policies, statements and actions revolve around protecting the white race and white privilege in this country (except for Pat Buchanan); however, it is quite difficult to look at any policy forwarded by modern Conservatism which is not squarely rooted in this.

Cycloptichorn

Can one be socially liberal and conservative on foreign policy? Or, must one adopt conservatism like a religion? Accept all or be a heretic?

I might be white (or perhaps whitish, being Jewish), but that is not my identity. It is American. If those that do not identify themselves as "white" are not successful in this country it is not the fault of white folk, since in this large country, one can find a region where one is allowed to follow one's muse.

How do white folks protect their supposed privilege? Do they have a secret handshake? Or, do they brainwash non-whites to not go to college by allowing non-whites to develop a self-defeating popular culture that belittles higher education, especially for males [Foofie has his cap on with the brim cocked to the side, and both hands pointing forward in a Rap gesture.]

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't agree. He has many competitors for that position - starting with Hughey Long of Louisiana and on to Robert LaFolette of Wisconsin, and many others. Don't forget William Jennings Bryan. There are more.

I sneaked a rare peak at dyslexia's post to find out it was about demagogues. I agree with you, and it should be totally obvious that demagoguery is rampant in today's political world. The Democrats have it honed to a fine craft, and one of the areas they have it working well is in the area of accusing conservatives of racism. We see it regularly here on this forum. Good examples of it included Clinton's outlandish accusations of black churches being burned down. We found out he simply made most of it up, if not all of it.

Since the days of Martin Luther King, who by the way was likely a Republican, the Democrats have been able to demagogue their way through the race issue and win about 90% of the black vote in virtually every single election. It also proves that bribery does continue to work pretty well with the voters.

So I think you could at least add Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to the list. Obama regularly demagogues business interests as being greedy and selfish, without so much as any evidence whatsoever. I believe it stems from his Marxist leaning mindset that thinks that "social justice" must spread the wealth around and therefore capitalism is just not fair. Therefore, he demagogues it on a regular basis.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

How do white folks protect their supposed privilege?

They promote policies designed to keep themselves rich. It's not a secret, there's no handshake.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Here is what conservatism can do for wealth among minorities.

"The impressive growth of the black middle class during the 1980s was attributable in no small part to the explosive growth of jobs under Reagan, which benefited blacks disproportionately.

Indeed, between 1982 and 1988, total black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.

Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate ? the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs ? increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.

The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.

During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1152858/posts

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
How do white folks protect their supposed privilege?

They promote policies designed to keep themselves rich. It's not a secret, there's no handshake.

Cycloptichorn

There, folks, is an example of demagoguery. Everybody works harder if they can benefit from it. And frankly I could care less if somebody else is rich, why are you so envious, cyclops? What somebody else earned does not diminish you. Liberals have this weird and totally incorrect view of the world that it is a zero sum game, that the pie is always the same size and if somebody else has what they view as maybe being bigger than theirs, they mistakenly believe that the size of their piece of pie was increased at the expense of their own. This view is totally and absolutely counter to everything that is known about economics in a free society. Their view might apply in a communist culture, so perhaps that would explain why they think that way, they have a groupee mindset, they simply cannot seem to exist as individuals with liberty and freedom to be responsible for themselves.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

And frankly I could care less if somebody else is rich, why are you so envious, cyclops?

For the last time, I'm not envious of you or anyone. Why is it that the only motivation that you can proscribe to those who hold different opinions than yourself is envy? I think it is revealing as to your true personal beliefs.

Quote:

Liberals have this weird and totally incorrect view of the world that it is a zero sum game, that the pie is always the same size and if somebody else has what they view as maybe being bigger than theirs, they mistakenly believe that the size of their piece of pie was increased at the expense of their own.

Oh, so that's why LIBERALS are the ones who fight to keep others from enjoying the same rights and opportunities as you do; that's why we argue against gay marriage, for example. Because we view any expansion of rights of others as hurting us.

Wait a minute, that's Conservatives!

That doesn't seem to square with your theory, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Okie wrote:
And frankly I could care less if somebody else is rich, why are you so envious, cyclops?

Quote:

Cy replied:
For the last time, I'm not envious of you or anyone.

Okie cares that others are rich. He says that he's envious of them. And that's exactly how Cy interpreted it too.

Wanna buy a bridge?

1 Reply

@JTT,

In case anyone is puzzling over JTT's post here, his reading comprehension leaves alot to be desired. He posts the exact opposite of what I said, or he thinks I said the opposite of what I actually said.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

In case anyone is puzzling over JTT's post here, his reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. He posts the exact opposite of what I said, or he thinks I said the opposite of what I actually said.

Thank you.

[There was a pretty big hint. Did you miss it?]

See,

http://able2know.org/topic/59924-13#post-3877556

If you can snatch the pebble from that posting, you will have achieved understanding, Grasshopper.

0 Replies

Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know