Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Yet, the implication you make above is despicable. That the issue with either Thomas or Rice or Gonzales was racial I don't think even you believe.

Further, that the black vote in the last election was something like 11 per cent towards republicans doesn't support the case that they've gotten a rough deal from the party they voted for. And the converse, the 80 something percent against republican candidates suggests they don't have much confidence in republicanism to act in their favor.

Apologies accepted though it would ring with more sincerity if you would now call the Democrats despicable for their role in perpetuating racism and discrimination.

The aunt jemima thing on Rice was a big ugly on the part of PD. I don't think I've seen that before.

Race, like gender, like sexual leaning, like hair color...all are completely irrelevant except for people who do wish to scapegoat and marginalize minorities or others who seem different. The bad guys show themselves with this sort of human evaluation.

Careful Blatham. You're sounding an awful lot like a Republican.

MMM....Yeah, I would like you to provide a list of names along with documented irrefutable proof........sorry,I don't accept your rhetorical verbage as proof. This is added below to clarify the use of verbage:

verbage - /ver'b*j/ A deliberate misspelling and mispronunciation of verbiage that assimilates it to the word "garbage". Compare content-free. More pejorative than "verbiage".

Blatham writes


I missed this when I was ready to assume you were going to be fair and reasonable. You ignore Thomas Sowell's thesis while saying it is despicable. Thomas Sowell has spent a lifetime researching and studying this stuff and writing about it. Being a black man himself and an educator who was schooled in inner city segregated schools and grew up under segregation, he no doubt has more credibility on the subject that would a highly prejudiced, white, wealthy Canadian who is obviously pretty fuzzy on history.

Sowell is by no means representative of the 'black community'. He's a conservative out to flog a conservative set of ideas and you know that. I could toss in any number of counter arguments from others, say Condi Rice's cousin.

Sowell is forwarding exactly what he declaims, hatred, mistrust, fear. He is doing so to attempt to move black voters to his party. The attempt is fine, the method is divisive, disgusting and imoral.

You go back in memory and text and you will find no instance of me suggesting that contemporary Republicans are racist. You won't find such because I don't think they are so in any larger proportion than any other group.

I'm a racist republican because I think illegal aliens should be rounded up and sent packing. Fine.

Why do the Bush bashers insist on posting in this thread?

Blatham writes within a couple of hours:




So there's more credibility shot to hell.

Also this from Blatham


You see the 'black community' as different from the 'white community'?

But I am fascinated. If Thomas Sowell and so many others like him are not typical of the 'black community', who would you consider representative? Would you describe for us a typical member of the 'black community'?

And further, could you give specific quotes or examples from any of Sowell's writings that are a) inaccurate/untrue/misrepresentative AND b) divisive, disgusting, immoral?

"contemporary" means what exactly, foxfire?

If 80 percent of the black community voted democrat, then Sowell clearly isn't speaking for nor politically representative of that community. That should seem fairly clear.

As I said earlier, to suggest opposition to Thomas or Rice or Gonzales arose out of racist sentiment is a divisive, disgusting and imoral charge. To suggest that the recent court appointments were opposed because of color is a divisive, digusting and imoral charge. For you to forward any of them is equally the same.

So you are saying Thomas Sowell has to vote Democrat in order to be part of 'that community'? I don't know that I know how he voted. Do you?
The only one of us here who is forwarding racist propaganda is you. As I do not know you to be a racist, I think you should rethink what you are saying and how you are saying it. Perhaps it is 'your side' forwarding divisive hate speech and 'my side' being unwilling to do that which supports Sowell's thesis in his essay I posted today.
You are the one insisting one has to be a certain way to be typical of the 'black community'.

So again, what is 'typical' for this so-called 'black community'? Is it purely how they vote? Or is it possible that Thomas Sowell is entirely typical of people of his particular race who have shrugged off the defeatist, racist, victim mentality of the liberal Left and have taken their rightful place in mainstream society?

give it up Blatham.......you're wasting your time. How many times and in how many ways do you have to explain? Good night!

But he hasn't explained at all Lola. He accuses the Republicans and Thomas Sowell (who is not a Republican I don't believe) of all sorts of despicable crimes but won't provide quotes or any explanation for how he arrived at that conclusion.

Good night, Lola.

In political understanding, Sowell clearly isn't representative of the larger african american community. That's the vote part. Not complicated.

The suggestion or charge that democrats are uniquely racist or even significantly racist is despicable. That's race-baiting. It's ugly. It's divisive. Again, simple.

You say that as if it was a bad thing. It is not. Paul Krugman's Op-Eds, for example, are also divisive, and they make people hate and mistrust George Bush. I'm sure many people who disagree with Paul Krugman find that disgusting and immoral. Yet this is one of the reasons he is still on my avatar; so why is it a bad thing when Thomas Sowell does the same from the right?

Well Blatham apparently is going to be unresponsive and will ignore any questions that are uncomfortable for him to answer, as well as that double standard he keeps denying is yet in play. (Republicans are racist, he says, despite evidence to the contrary. Democrats are not, despite evidence to the contrary.)

But so far as Krugman goes, Sowell is about as hard on the current administration as Krugman is. Sowell is a supply sider as I believe Krugman is as well. Neither are given to being hateful or snotty in their opinions, however. Both being economists, they probably have a lot in common.

fox

If 'uncomfortable' is what your thinking made me, that would be a big step up.

Thomas

You may be right, but I don't think so. Let me think through this while typing as I don't have much time before I'm off for the weekend.

What initially caught my attention and ire were two claims made by foxfyre in the piece preceding Sowell's piece. A couple of days ago, the same claim was made by another. I expect we will be hearing or reading a lot more instances of this claim, particularly at townhall and on fox.



The second, carries the clear implication that the motive behind objections to nominees to either the bench or to admin posts is actually racist. That's a disgusting claim. For two reasons. First, it is a diversionary trick designed to take attention away from the real objections (substantive and completely unrelated to race, eg Rice's role in the propaganda campaign to build consensus for the war using deceits and promotion of fear - see the Downing Street memo plus much else, likewise Gonzales, likewise two of the recent judicial nominees) and it is also designed to slander those opposed as being racist.

You will grasp, though fox will likely not, that these are falsehoods forwarded strategically. But a consequence of this strategy is to engender racism in the community. When Johnny Cochran decided to 'use the race card', another senior lawyer in the team objected (as did many others) because he/they considered that though this seemed a workable legal stategy for the case, it was an immoral tactic to use because of the racial divisions extant in the community and that such a strategy in such a public case would be likely, or even certain, to further inflame racist divisions in the community. As you probably know, that was a consequence. The message meant to be delivered (to the black jurors with Cochran, and here, to the broad african american community) is that there is someone is out to hurt them, to denigrate them, to marginalize them - to treat them like niggers. Fox's first line makes the same charge, but against 'liberalism'.

I understand that you don't think that the relevant social programs which we know are being referred to here (social assistance and affirmative action) are good policy. You understand that I and other think they are. But you likely don't believe that the motivation behind them is other than well-intentioned, even though you might think those good intentions are themselves the problem (which then of course would apply to anyone's good intentions to aid the downtrodden blacks, including Sowell's or foxfyre's - who won't get this point).

I make no claim that contemporary conservatives are racist. I don't think they want to hold blacks down. I don't think anyone does but for the real racists of the white power sort.

What I do indict them for is the use of such strategies in seeking power. That's not racist, but it is immoral.

For Krugman to go after Bush or for Ann Coulter to go after Clinton is fine. Again, that's the game. Given that the objections are relevant and fairly accurate, we expect political discussion to go this way. To foster consensus against the target, even to foster strong emotions against the target is also fine, given the above. But this is not to be divisive in the same manner as fostering racism or making folks afraid of their neighbors.

You might have an argument Blatham if you could name a single conservative minority that the Left has not attempted everything in the book to block nomination.

And yes, the Left gives all ideologically conservative nominees a bad time. But a careful analysis of the particular rhetoric and animosity directed toward minorities is more than the norm. I think minority nominations are particularly threatening as each one does chisel away at the racist image of conservatism that the Left has so carefully crafted and promoted. I will express that as my opinion at this time. But I have an awful lot of well educated, learned opinion out there sharing it. Including Thomas Sowell.

Why is it that the poorest minority cities in the US are all controlled by Dems? They blame the Republicans for the poverty but in all the years of control of these areas they haven't improved but have gotten worse year in and year out. The schools don't have funding the people are still on welfare after more then one generation the housing hasn't improved neither has their way of life. Crime is still rampant and children can't read or compete with their burb peers. If the Dems are the party of the minority and the poor how come things have only gotten worse?