Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

  1. #31
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Ok, well, rather then leftist I will say 'obama supporters' have called various opposition to various issues a result of racism... mostly on the news since the average person shouldn't be so gullible to think that it's a racial issue.

    So you reduce your argument that only a small minority of the people are actually racist, yet they are the voice of the opposition to Obama?? Politicians are equally racist on both sides of the fence they sit on... it's probably the same rate you might find in various areas of the country as well... but what is going on is that the FOCUS is on what that small minority of already hateful people are being used to demonize the majority of REAL decent hardworking people that have legitimate gripe with the POLICIES... AKA it is being used, even by YOU right now... to stifle debate, want proof, we'll continue...
    I think you're doing what I was talking about with the erecting of a strawman. I'm not saying most opposition to his policies is racism. Not at all. I clarify that basically every post I make on the topic, the last three Democrat presidents, the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader have all said that now. Opposition to his policies is welcome and appropriate, absolutely.

    But, that's not really what I'm talking about. In addition to all the legitimate opposition to his policies, there is also racially motivated opposition to him. Just because a racist opposes something doesn't mean the other people that oppose it are racist, but it also doesn't mean we should tolerate the guy that is racist.

    Most your responses are 'not all opposition is racist and it shouldn't be considered racist'. I totally agree with you on that. As does everybody.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    The appropriate thing to do is the shunning of this behavior, boycotts, etc... not legislation.
    I totally agree. That's what I'm asking for- more shunning from Republican leaders.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    You mean that sign : "It doesn't matter what this sign says, you'll call it racist anyway"??
    LOL. No, that one actually cracked me up for like a day when I first saw it. I don't agree with the sentiment, but that was a brilliant sign.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    They don't speak out because it's essentially a non-issue...
    Here is where the disconnect happens. Above you acknowledged that racism, even at the 10% level, is terrible. But when the context is whether Republican leaders should denounce it, you say it's a non-issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    When everything is called 'racist' if it even slightly opposes Obama's agenda, it becomes very VERY easy to be 'tolerating, denying or defending' racism... you might not even know you're racist...
    I really believe this is an issue of defensiveness on the right. When somebody on the left says "hey, this one thing somebody on the right said is racist" it seems like the folks on the right are hearing "hey, everybody on the right is racist" and they get all defensive. That is not what we're saying by a long shot. Lots of folks on the right are clinging on to some off the cuff remarks people like Garafalo make and whatnot as though that's the position of the entire left. It isn't. We know most of you aren't racist and we know most opposition to Obama isn't racist. But, we also know, as you do, that SOME folks on the right are racist and SOME opposition to Obama is racist. That's what we want dealt with. We're not looking for some kind of confession that the right are all racists. We don't even think that. I wouldn't make any sense. And we're definitely not looking to silence opposition to policy. What we're looking for is just for the Republican leaders to resume denouncing white supremacy. Period. It really isn't a big request given that they don't like white supremacy either.

  2. #32
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    03-22-11 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    463

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by content_curmudgeon View Post
    And what sort of punishments do you suggest for these naughty liberals?
    I understand that FEMA has some VERY nice mass-incarceration facilities!

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Or at least I'm not saying it is inherent in the Republican party. I'm saying they used to be in the Democratic party. We booted them out. Now they're hanging on to the Republican party. With the Democrats running a black candidate for president we pretty much shoved the remaining racists in our party out the door and they're rallying around your party. Again though, by all means, I don't think they're really Republicans as such. More like they're parasites that clings on to whatever party will tolerate them. We just need the GOP to refuse to have them.
    Well, first of all, I am an indepedent. A liberal neocon by my description. The Republicans is not *my* party.

    I am not convinced that the Democrats booted out all the racists. Even with the nomination of a black president. There is a lot of inherent racism in social policy. Affirmative action is racist. See below for welfare. This is not to say that there are not a lot of racists in the Republican camp. I like your description of them being parasites. Those accurately describe the overt racists. A much larger issue is the "covert"/passive racists. I agree that a GOP that was adamant about being anti-racist would be a good thing. Perhaps they could oppose welfare on racists grounds...

    There is a lot of racism within the black community and they are predominantly on the left.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    There is an inherent soft racism in welfare policy, a darling of the Democratic party.
    You hear that a lot from folks on the right... But it makes no sense to me whatsoever... Explain if you feel so inclined... Although I probably won't buy it
    Again, I am not really on the right. I'm no expert at arguing these things, but I'll take a shot. Welfare provides no mechanism for improvement, so once you are on welfare you are likely to stay. A high percentage of those on welfare are black.
    Last edited by reefedjib; 10-18-09 at 11:49 AM.

  4. #34
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Affirmative action is racist.
    I suspect that belief is based on a misconception about what affirmative action laws say. Many people believe that AA requires that employers hire a certain number of people from each race. So, they believe that if the pool of candidates from a particular race are underqualified, the employer ends up having to hire less qualified candidates from that race. In fact, most people you talk to about AA will say that is what it does.

    However, that is absolutely false. What that describes is hiring quotas. Those were made illegal by the SCOTUS in the 1978 Bakke v U of CA case. Ever since then, all that AA has dictated is that if an employer who recieves federal funding falls way below the norm for representing a particular race or gender, they need to submit an official explanation. "We hired fewer X because fewer of the X that applied met our requirements" is considered sufficient. If they can provide an explanation like that, that's it, they're all set. If they can't provide any explanation at all, then AA requires them to demonstrate that they're taking steps to include the group they are under-representing in their consideration for future positions. Typically, that means that the next time they hire for a position, they will need to interview members of that group before they decide who to hire, or they may need to do an internal AA meeting with hiring managers where they reinforce that they do not discriminate against any candidate based on race or gender. That's it. After they do that, they can still hire whoever they want. All AA is these days is a very light weight reminder that companies should take steps to ensure that they aren't racially discriminating.

    And, it's badly needed. In my opinion, it isn't enough. A white applicant with the same resume is still 2 and a half times more likely to get an interview than a black applicant. That's a serious problem. I'd certainly rather we live in a world where we don't need to pressure employers not to discriminate, but since the do appear to be discriminating pretty heavily, we can't just ignore it. The current very weak version of AA seems like the absolute minimum we can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Again, I am not really on the right. I'm no expert at arguing these things, but I'll take a shot. Welfare provides no mechanism for improvement, so once you are on welfare you are likely to stay. A high percentage of those on welfare are black.
    I disagree with this as well. Welfare itself was disbanded during Clinton's term. When it was disbanded there were 2 white people recieving welfare for every black person that was recieving it. Since then all we've had is AFDC and food stamps. Both of those are only for families with children, and both of them have time limits of 5 years. So, somebody can't stay on it forever. The benefit amounts have not increased to match cost of living since the late 80s. At this point, they are just barely enough to feed, clothe, and shelter your children. If you've ever spent time in a house where their source of income was AFDC and food stamps, you'll know what I'm saying is true. I used to do a lot of home visits to families that were on AFDC when I lived in DC and pretty much in every one of them you would find things like crates being used as a dining table, holes in the walls and floors being patched up with tarps, children who only had two changes of clothes, etc. It is a grim, grim, life and almost everybody I've ever know that was in that situation talks about nothing except how they're going to get out. Also, less than 5% of the black population in the US is on either.

    So, I don't believe those programs are creating a signficant disincentive to self improvement in the black community. I do believe that some percentage of people on those programs are so lazy that they're willing to live in abject poverty rather than work... But that's a much smaller percentage that people think. Maybe 10% or 20%. If there are things we can do to incentivize those folks to get back out there, great, but the most important thing is that we make sure that the 80% who really are struggling for understandable reasons are able to feed their kids. In my book, nothing our government does is more important than that.

  5. #35
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    If your source can be affilliated with any of the 'big 6' media companies (controlling 98% of all print, internet, radio, television, and movies), then it's actually a safe bet that there is some form of bias or spin to the information presented.

    Sometimes it's hard to sort out the fact from the fiction, that much is true... but it's an equal opportunity thing.
    So we cannot trust anything, so how do we know anything?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I suspect that belief is based on a misconception about what affirmative action laws say. Many people believe that AA requires that employers hire a certain number of people from each race. So, they believe that if the pool of candidates from a particular race are underqualified, the employer ends up having to hire less qualified candidates from that race. In fact, most people you talk to about AA will say that is what it does.

    However, that is absolutely false. What that describes is hiring quotas. Those were made illegal by the SCOTUS in the 1978 Bakke v U of CA case. Ever since then, all that AA has dictated is that if an employer who recieves federal funding falls way below the norm for representing a particular race or gender, they need to submit an official explanation. "We hired fewer X because fewer of the X that applied met our requirements" is considered sufficient. If they can provide an explanation like that, that's it, they're all set. If they can't provide any explanation at all, then AA requires them to demonstrate that they're taking steps to include the group they are under-representing in their consideration for future positions. Typically, that means that the next time they hire for a position, they will need to interview members of that group before they decide who to hire, or they may need to do an internal AA meeting with hiring managers where they reinforce that they do not discriminate against any candidate based on race or gender. That's it. After they do that, they can still hire whoever they want. All AA is these days is a very light weight reminder that companies should take steps to ensure that they aren't racially discriminating.

    And, it's badly needed. In my opinion, it isn't enough. A white applicant with the same resume is still 2 and a half times more likely to get an interview than a black applicant. That's a serious problem. I'd certainly rather we live in a world where we don't need to pressure employers not to discriminate, but since the do appear to be discriminating pretty heavily, we can't just ignore it. The current very weak version of AA seems like the absolute minimum we can do.
    Ok, I did not know that. To be honest I was primarily thinking of admissions to colleges and universities. They do take a lesser candidate of a minority race over a more qualified candidate of an Anglo-saxon race.

    I like nothing better than to see qualified blacks get hired to meaningful jobs. I am a software engineer. I work with business analysts, testers, business customers and other software folks. At my current company, there are about 175 people employed at thise various jobs. I don't know all of them, but I can only think of 2 black folks in those roles. Both are quite good. One has a PhD. That's just over 1%. My previous job at Washington Mutual had 0 out of 120 folks. WAMU is a major employer. Why is it that blacks are not training and entering the workforce in these kinds of jobs? That area of employment is a major area of middle class jobs. I know very few black engineers. This is merely my persoal experience.

    Instead of hiring quotas, I would rather see recruitment into college degree programs for qualified blacks. It seems they aren't getting much of an education in high schools, so there are few who are qualified.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I disagree with this as well. Welfare itself was disbanded during Clinton's term. When it was disbanded there were 2 white people recieving welfare for every black person that was recieving it. Since then all we've had is AFDC and food stamps. Both of those are only for families with children, and both of them have time limits of 5 years. So, somebody can't stay on it forever. The benefit amounts have not increased to match cost of living since the late 80s. At this point, they are just barely enough to feed, clothe, and shelter your children. If you've ever spent time in a house where their source of income was AFDC and food stamps, you'll know what I'm saying is true. I used to do a lot of home visits to families that were on AFDC when I lived in DC and pretty much in every one of them you would find things like crates being used as a dining table, holes in the walls and floors being patched up with tarps, children who only had two changes of clothes, etc. It is a grim, grim, life and almost everybody I've ever know that was in that situation talks about nothing except how they're going to get out. Also, less than 5% of the black population in the US is on either.

    So, I don't believe those programs are creating a signficant disincentive to self improvement in the black community. I do believe that some percentage of people on those programs are so lazy that they're willing to live in abject poverty rather than work... But that's a much smaller percentage that people think. Maybe 10% or 20%. If there are things we can do to incentivize those folks to get back out there, great, but the most important thing is that we make sure that the 80% who really are struggling for understandable reasons are able to feed their kids. In my book, nothing our government does is more important than that.
    1 out of 3 is a very high percentage. 33% versus what, 12% by population? I thought they still had welfare for people without families.

    I agree its a pretty important program for the government.

  7. #37
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Ok, I did not know that. To be honest I was primarily thinking of admissions to colleges and universities. They do take a lesser candidate of a minority race over a more qualified candidate of an Anglo-saxon race.
    College admissions is a more complicated one than hiring. That Bakke decision did outlaw the use of quotas for universities, but the Gratz v. Bollinger decision in 2003 softened or clarified that a bit. That decision said that universities are still prohibited from making race a primary factor in admissions, but they said that taking the diversity the candidate would bring to the school in general was a valid secondary consideration. It's pretty fuzzy, but what they are basically saying is that you can't just take a candidate that is less qualified because of their race, but you can consider race as part of the overall subjective picture in the same way that you might consider things like the applicant's life story and essays and whatnot. The argument the school used in that case was that the quality of education they could provide was better if they offered students a diverse student body and exposure to people from a wide range of backgrounds. They contended that they weigh all types of diversity highly. For example, they accepted a long list of white applicants with lower test scores because they had done things like started their own business which they felt would bring valuable life experience to the campus that other students could learn from, the accepted a lot of white and asian students with lower grades because they had grown up in vastly different cultures and they felt that would bring fresh perspectives to class discussions, they took lots of students because of unsusual life experiences, spoke different languages, had unusual interests, etc. So, they argued, they should be able to consider race in that same light and the supreme court agreed on the condition that they continue to look at all aspects of diversity of life experience, not just race, and that it remain a secondary criteria.

    Frankly it's kind of an unclear standard in my opinion, but I don't know that that is a bad thing. Giving universities some leeway in deciding who they want to admit seems fine to me as long as they aren't discriminating against anybody in large numbers. I think this standard strikes about the right balance. Admissions is such a subjective process that it's hard to devise a strict rule that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I am a software engineer. I work with business analysts, testers, business customers and other software folks. At my current company, there are about 175 people employed at thise various jobs. I don't know all of them, but I can only think of 2 black folks in those roles.
    Yeah I'm in software too and I definitely see the same thing. I don't understand it either. There just aren't that many black applicants or black people in comp sci programs. You don't see that in other highly skilled professions. In law and medical schools, for example, there are much higher numbers of black students, but not tech... I've pondered it a lot and never really figured it out. But, that's a good example for seeing how AA works. One of the companies I worked for did a ton of government contracts so they had to submit AA paperwork. They had 100 or so employs and none of them were black, so they documented that the percentage of qualified black applicants was much lower than white or asian applicants, so that was no problem.

    [quote=reefedjib;1058313902Instead of hiring quotas, I would rather see recruitment into college degree programs for qualified blacks. It seems they aren't getting much of an education in high schools, so there are few who are qualified.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. Improving the quality of public schools in low income neighborhoods regardless of race is probably the most important thing our society can do to level the playing field. Sadly, it's a difficult problem. I say give them as much money as they need, but more money than they need doesn't help... Not really sure what the solution is there.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    1 out of 3 is a very high percentage. 33% versus what, 12% by population?
    Yeah. A black person is about 3 times as likely to be on government assistance as a white person. But, still, it's a very small percentage of the total black population. Less than 5%. I think it can be explained just by looking at the higher percentage of blacks living in poverty, discrimination, intergenerational poverty, etc.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    That was an interesting background on college admissions...

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Agreed. Improving the quality of public schools in low income neighborhoods regardless of race is probably the most important thing our society can do to level the playing field. Sadly, it's a difficult problem. I say give them as much money as they need, but more money than they need doesn't help... Not really sure what the solution is there.
    This probably deserves its own thread. Ok, here it is: http://www.debatepolitics.com/educat...rformance.html

  9. #39
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Only a liberal would need a study to help them understand that when people are vociferously citing issues that they are upset with an administration about, that race isn't the driving factor.

    I bet it still goes over some liberals heads, who still have their "race-is-everything" contact lenses firmly affixed to their eyeballs.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

    Quote Originally Posted by K-1 View Post
    I bet it still goes over some liberals heads, who still have their "race-is-everything" contact lenses firmly affixed to their eyeballs.
    Racism does exist. But like I asserted, although my examples may have been poor, I don't believe racism is the sole domain of the Republicans, like the liberals would have us believe.

    As the study determined, racism is not the driver for criticism of Obama's policies and politics.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •