(Perhaps it was your tone?)
No one's calling you out, pal. Chill.
PDiddie--
Attempted to PM you re: my tone.
I don't see the Message in my Sent Box, and ask if you would let me know whether or not you recieved it.
Sincere apologies for gumming up this board with this message, but didn't know how else to find out.
You may delete this after reading.
Thank you. (Would have PMed Administrator for this info, but problem is with PMs.)
Lash Goth and in general - I consider myself a moderate democrat with socialist leanings, but I do believe the word socialist has grown into something way beyond what it is.
Socialism, as used today - mostly by republicans, I'm afraid - is meant to connote a sympathy for so-called welfare queens. And "welfare queens" itself is still another code term not so carefully disguised. Socialism is also used to designate - wrongly - people who are interested in having government work for the common good, recognizing that certain safety nets are necessary. When it comes to persuading mothers on welfare to got to work, for instance - I'm all for that. But at the same time I recognize (because I've worked with it) that the low-paying jobs that are generally available do not suffice to cover bare cost of living. And the practical aspects, such as who cares for the children, and where, and at what cost, are inevitable. And affordable housing is impossible to find. And with this the matter of providing health care sticks its sneaky nose in.
So there are those who want to help provide for these problems - not everybody is so able-bodied or able-minded, you know. And now we come to trying to work out the difficulties. Entitlements is another code word (and "code " itself seems to be a buzz word). The perception is, whether you regard it as true or false, that the republicans, by and large, are in favor of the rich and do not care about the poor. Further, they look down on the poor, and say it's all their fault, if they really wanted to do something, they could. Just like the rich, who can buy all those stocks, and have all the tax breaks, and have their companies registered in places where they do not have to pay taxes.
Racism. Who generally is at the top of the list? You say the republicans so far have not been able to attract black people, and then you go on to talk about Pelosi. It has not very much to do with Pelosi, but everything to do with a perception of the party.
Finally, a comment from some people here, where I live - and a very mixed bag it is, too. In my paper there was a picture of a group of seven soldiers, in one of those places they're presently gathered in. All black. And the comment was on the color of who was in the trenches, and who was probably commanding them. The perception? White republican generals.
So, if you all want change, you'd better start looking where some of the real complaints are.
mamajuana--
Socialism, as used today - mostly by republicans, I'm afraid - is meant to connote a sympathy for so-called welfare queens. And "welfare queens" itself is still another code term not so carefully disguised.
Socialism stands on it's own, and was not used by me as 'code' for anything.
I think, though, your posts are telling. It seems you are putting alot of stock in guessing what people might mean, rather than taking them at face value. You also seem hung up on 'perception', as if it is fact. I can't worry about how things are perceived. I try to see them for what they are.
That Republicans only seek to help the rich is an old, simplistic dated perception. Certainly, you know there are more shades to a major American political party than that?
Disclaimer: I appreciate you sharing your views. My remarks are not intended as an insult.
Lady Goth:
Nothing you said offended me. You were short, concise, and straight forward. Max however has a smart mouth, and then feigns innocence when one strikes back. This is not Abuzz, I'll just call Jespah in and let her decide who started the crap!!
I'm happy that you are content and happy with life! What else do we have if we don't have that!
You do however, build my wealth every time you vote republican.
Now George Bush is looking for ways to increase taxes for you, because he feels that you don't pull your wieght with the taxes you pay! That's the truth, so enjoy your new tax bill!! I will get you a link on it!!
Anon
Lash, you are but one - the "others" intend them to be perceived and that they are 'code' words.
If the Republican party is not out to "only seek to help the rich", then the current administration has not caught on. This is the only "perception" I can judge! I can say that they are blatantly biased toward the rich!
Anon--
Agreeing to disagree, even vehemently, is a pleasure.
We are good.
BillW wrote:Lash, you are but one - the "others" intend them to be perceived and that they are 'code' words.
If the Republican party is not out to "only seek to help the rich", then the current administration has not caught on. This is the only "perception" I can judge! I can say that they are blatantly biased toward the rich!
BillW
Specifics, please, if you choose to wade in.
Lash - I use perception to point out that while you are saying what you believe - many others perceive. That is, they hear the words, they see the words, and they perceive something to be true or not.
The fact that the tax cut put forward by Bush was perceived of as not jump-starting the economy, as benefitting those who already have - this is based on observation, reading and listening.
My belief is that the republicans may have some good ideas, but that their basic philosophy is geared to the corporate - that the making of money and the keeping of it is their primary goal. They didn't start out that way - but this is where they are. And the republican party is made up mostly of white males.
So, when talking about racism issues, perception is very important, because this is what human nature is. There is a very fine line there that exists.
And perception is what a lot of the republican party is deliberately based upon today. A lot of the people making decisions at the top - Karl Rove and Roger Ailes - received their early training in the art of deception and perception - advertising. Only a fool today would not be aware of the role that word plays.
Lash, any issue you want to pick is decided in favor of the rich or it is ignored!
Happy New Year, Everyone!
As a suggestion, might we all make a New Year's resolution to dampen the contentious atmosphere even in threads as potentially explosive as racism?
Everyone has an opinion but as a comparison, try to imagine you are speaking to a person face to face. I think one would stop and think how they were addressing another person if they really wanted to make a point and didn't really have a desire to insult anyone. That, after all, is the least likely way to even begin to convince anyone of your side of the story.
One New Year's eve a lot of years ago, through some set of circumstances I can't recall, I found myself at home with my mother watching Guy Lombardo on TV. Midnight finally rolled around. Balloons fell, people kissed and spilled more champagne and the broadcaster talked and talked and talked. And ten minutes later, he'd run out of things to talk of, so they replayed midnight coming around. They replayed it four times.
Looking back after all these years, I can say with clear certainty that this was possibly the most boring and unvaluable use ever of my meager time here.
Why don't we try something new with this forum. For me, political discussions on abuzz got about as predicatable and repetitive and valueless as that night with my sainted mother. Party lines trotted out, 'my side is right' certainties announced with trumpets, rotten tomatos thrown across the street at the other guys....could anything become more boring? And valueless.
Let's do it differently here. John Kenneth Galbraith and William F. Buckley are a million miles apart on many policy issues, and yet remain best of friends, with deep intellectual respect for each other. And neither of these guys is dumb.
Let's raise our sights. Careful and thoughtful discourse doesn't have a good exemplar in what we see on "Crossfire".
All by way of seconding LW's hope for a valuable new year. Best wishes to each of you. Nice to have you here.
May there be
Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward All Mankind!
Okay. Happy New Year, and may it be a good one.
Will one of you point to an example of what you are talking about.
I want this forum to work as well, as I enjoy discussing politics, and hearing other people's takes on issues.
I have read over my posts, because this is not the first time someone has complained about the discussions here. My 'tone' was called into question. So, believing I had been polite, I reread and see nothing I have said to offend.
Since I have witnessed rude comments and profanity elsewhere, but see no complaints in those areas, I am confused.
Some patient person please give me an example of what has gone on to merit all this attention. If I am a culprit, I would have no idea of what to avoid.
I am sincere.
Otherwise, I am left thinking that it is my beliefs, not my words that draw such ire. (If in fact, I am the Drawer of the Ire.)
Lash - there's always the option of self-editing but sorry if Blatham or I put anyone on the defensive. The site does want to honor free speech insofar as there aren't any direct violations of the rules of the forum. The title of the discussion is provocative but stepping forward and stating that one is conservative but not racist can be insightful --I believe this was directed at politicians (who have the bent to operate behind a facade) and a certain faction of society that is perceived as racist, in the Southern states for instance where flying the Confederate flag is like a red flag popping up. I'm not certain that racism is confined to one's political mindset in general. I think many of us are in denial of how we feel about race. Remember that Lincoln wasn't exactly without prejudice -- if you read about him in depth, he was adamantly against slavery but would have been just as pleased to see all the black people return to Africa . The Civil War was as much about state's rights as it was about slavery. I don't agree that half the country is conservative -- or liberal. Since we can't seem to get half the country to vote, the Congress and the Senate are hardly indicative. There's gradations that don't allow lines to be drawn, but for me it's easy to tell that there may be 30% of the country that is conservative, 30% liberal, 30% centrist and 10% schizophrenic.
We are all born equal but it's impossible for us to end up financially equal in a capitalist society -- to be fair, there is an effort to make the playing ground equal for everyone to advance. That some whites don't end up climbing up the economic ladder has a lot of other circumstances involved other than affirmative action. Besides that, Trent Lott isn't now for affirmative action!
I have been too preoccupied to add to this discussion of late. I have just read over the responses I had missed, and I have to say I did not perceive that anyone from either side was out of line. It's about as civil as a political discussion can be.
It is my belief that the Republicans in general are courting the racist vote. On the other hand, I don't truly believe being a racist is a part of every conservative's mindset. Unfortunately, the non racist conservative only has one place to put his vote in a strictly two party system, which is essentially what we have.
OK....regardless of who started what, that is now enough.
To everyone...who provokes who is, at this point, not relevant. No further comments of the nature that just occured are excusable in the forum.
