• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: Obama foes aren't race-driven

We Democrats made that mistake once and millions of lives were ruined for generations. Republicans, we need you to show us up and cast out the white supremacists in months instead of the decades it took us to denounce the dixiecrats.

Why are you saying that racism is isolated solely on the Republican side of the house? The Republican party was the party that freed the slaves and intituted the Civil Rights Act. There is an inherent soft racism in welfare policy, a darling of the Democratic party.
 
What's more alarming is that it wasn't 10% a year ago. The number is growing. Membership in militant white supremacist groups has reportedly trippled since Obama won the election. That's a serious problem.

I don't think this is indicative of a rise in actual racism. People who aren't racist to begin with don't look up, see a black President, and decide to start posting on Stormfront and find their local Aryan brotherhood.

What I do think Obama has done by the simple fact of his existence is force people to deal with their own feelings of racism. A lot of white people have negative views of black people, even though it isn't intentional or deliberate. However, recognizing that it isn't intentional or deliberate doesn't mean that such subconscious presuppositions are not powerful. They are. Think about it this way. Ask yourself the following: if you were walking in a dark alley and heard footsteps behind you, would you be more frightened if you saw a black man or a white man? Most white people would probably be cautious of both... but moreso the black person. That's just societal programming. It's just there. Read Blink by Gladwell for a round-about rationale for why this exists. It's interesting.

Now, apply that same tendency towards hiring practices and you understand why a white person in power to hire another person might prefer to stick with someone that looks and acts like them, culturally speaking.

So no, I don't think racism is growing in this country. I think people who had racist worldviews are being forced to confront their own racist views and this struggle is causing a lot of growing pains. Think of it this way: many medical problems often become worse upon immediate treatment and don't actually subside or decrease until after extended attention.


At the same time, racism is appearing more and more often in relatively mainstream media pundits. The racism is being legitimized by it's association with the Republican party. A kid that goes to a teabagging event with his republican parents is being exposed to the full fledged white supremacists and is learning that it is ok to march with folks like that- that they're on the same side. To go from there to becoming a white supremacist himself is not a huge leap.

It's frustrating to read an intelligent piece like this which so casually uses the term 'teabagging.' It really brings down the quality and credibility of the post to see broad group of people, mostly concerned with taxation, labeled with a crude sexual term.

Anyway, I do think that the Tea Party protesters should do a better part of distancing themselves from the white supremacists but I would also interject three points in their defense. First, they don't have a solid leadership structure so getting a message as specific as "those guys in white capes are whacko" is harder to do than in a political party setting. Second, the supremacists are opportunists: they see an opportunity to integrate with people who are frustrated at this administration and the supremacists are taking advantage. They have set leadership groups which can coordinate and plan on how to effectively spread their message. That gives them an advantage over the more nebulous and fractured leadership of the Tea Party people. Third, media portrayals are still there for ratings... which means that if 100 people are protesting and 99 are civil and intelligent, the drunk idiot in the white cape with the misspelled sign will be the one who ends up on YouTube or MSNBC. That's just ratings. So be careful in assuming that "the teabaggers" support these clowns at all. I personally suspect most of the Tea Party goers find them repulsive.

What really has me puzzled is that the solution is simple and pain free. All we need is for a number of very high profile white Republicans to speak out against white supremacy. The ideals of white supremacy and the ideals of conservatism are completely opposed. So why aren't we hearing that message being shouted from the top of the party? Why aren't any of the speakers at teabagging events expressing their disagreement with the folks in the crowd with racist signs? Sure, they'd risk losing some of the votes from white supremacists, but they'd gain at least that many moderate and minority votes wouldn't they? I don't think most Republicans are racists. Not at all. But I do see an alarming tendency emerging for Republicans tolerating racism, denying that it exists, even defending it. Doing that creates a safe haven for white supremacy to grow under the protection of a major political party. We Democrats made that mistake once and millions of lives were ruined for generations. Republicans, we need you to show us up and cast out the white supremacists in months instead of the decades it took us to denounce the dixiecrats.

Part of the problem is that any attempt to address or criticize this aspect of the Tea Party movement will be met by the Democrats and media with glee. Such addresses will be taken as a sign that the Republicans are aware that their members are rife with racists and 'are only now doing something about it.' In addressing such idiots, the Republicans could end up giving the supremacists the appearance of more influence than they actually wield. Rep leadership could try to fight a problem, only to find that focusing on the problem will make it larger than it was when they ignored it.

In my opinion, the Reps should address the issue... but I also see where they could be afraid to do so out of fear of how the left and the media will spin such a response.
 
Why are you saying that racism is isolated solely on the Republican side of the house? The Republican party was the party that freed the slaves and intituted the Civil Rights Act.

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.

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 ;)
 
I haven't actually seen many, if any, liberals saying that the bulk of opposition to Obama's policies is driven by racism.

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.

That's sort of a straw man the right created and attributed to liberals. What we've been saying, and what I absolutely still believe to be true, is that a portion of the folks opposing Obama, especially amongst the most foaming at the mouth opposition, are motivated by racism. A Republican on another board estimated that it is "no more than 10% of Republicans" who are racist. I think that's probably about right, and I think most folks in both parties would probably put out a number somewhere in that ballpark.

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...

Where I think the parties differ is around how big of a deal 10% is and what should be done about it. From where I'm sitting, 10% is a huge number. That means almost half of the juries have a racist sitting on them. Think what that means for equality before the law. When somebody gets a job usually there are somewhere around 5 people involved in the decision of who to hire. If 10% of one of the major party are racist, that means 1/4 of the times a black guy applies for a job, he's getting denied because of his race.

Wow, where do I start... There is alot of discrimination that goes on everywhere... I know it's not fair, but even attractive people have it easier then unattractive people.

The appropriate thing to do is the shunning of this behavior, boycotts, etc... not legislation. You can't create a law to incriminate 'hurt feelings'... there's no way that you can work it without creating some sort of tyranny where anyone can be found guilty for anything.


I know that's terrible... but that does NOT mean that the opposition to Obama's policies are racially biased.

What's more alarming is that it wasn't 10% a year ago. The number is growing.

More likely they are being increasingly reported...

Membership in militant white supremacist groups has reportedly trippled since Obama won the election. That's a serious problem. In 2007 3,500 black people were the victims of hate crimes.

If you look to the MIAC and DHS reports, Ron Paul is a millitant white supremacist millitia member... ANY millitia group that isn't government sanctioned is counted in the 'white supremacist' category. Militia activities have been increasing, but that's not a reflection on race, though it's being portrayed that way.

I'm not looking forward to seeing how many there are in 2008 or 2009, but it's a safe bet that as membership in white supremacist organizations rises, so will those numbers. The FBI has foiled a shocking 75 domestic terrorist plots by white supremacist organizations since the Oklaholma City bombing. These groups are no joke. They're violent, they're active, they're dangerous, and they're growing.

Once again, race was added regardless of the members opinions... I won't even get into these '75 foiled attempts' cause I don't want to spend an hour sourcing...

At the same time, racism is appearing more and more often in relatively mainstream media pundits.

Ex : A man brought a gun to an Obama rally, Newscaster says, "that's just racist"

The racism is being legitimized by it's association with the Republican party.

As a means of demonizing opposition to Obama.

A kid that goes to a teabagging event with his republican parents is being exposed to the full fledged white supremacists and is learning that it is ok to march with folks like that- that they're on the same side. To go from there to becoming a white supremacist himself is not a huge leap.

*smacks forehead* Not only are the teaparties against excessive taxation among other pertinant issues, you come in and call this group a 'multi-cultural' whit supremacist meeting...

What really has me puzzled is that the solution is simple and pain free. All we need is for a number of very high profile white Republicans to speak out against white supremacy. The ideals of white supremacy and the ideals of conservatism are completely opposed.

They don't speak out because it's essentially a non-issue... and anyone that comes out would have their testimony scrutinized and if they ever so much as cut off a black person on his day off that would be brought up and thrown in his face...

So why aren't we hearing that message being shouted from the top of the party?

cause they know how retarted it is to inject race into non-racial issues...


Why aren't any of the speakers at teabagging events expressing their disagreement with the folks in the crowd with racist signs?

You mean that sign : "It doesn't matter what this sign says, you'll call it racist anyway"??

Sure, they'd risk losing some of the votes from white supremacists, but they'd gain at least that many moderate and minority votes wouldn't they? I don't think most Republicans are racists. Not at all. But I do see an alarming tendency emerging for Republicans tolerating racism, denying that it exists, even defending it.

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...

Doing that creates a safe haven for white supremacy to grow under the protection of a major political party. We Democrats made that mistake once and millions of lives were ruined for generations. Republicans, we need you to show us up and cast out the white supremacists in months instead of the decades it took us to denounce the dixiecrats.

Denouncing those a*****es that continuously inject race into non-racial issues is the safest bet, then people might realize that almost noone is really racist, just pissed off about the issues, cause most of these policies are a kick in the arse for the vast majority of the people and would realize this quickly if we didn't have to defend ourselves as being racially motivated.
 
So no, I don't think racism is growing in this country. I think people who had racist worldviews are being forced to confront their own racist views and this struggle is causing a lot of growing pains. Think of it this way: many medical problems often become worse upon immediate treatment and don't actually subside or decrease until after extended attention.

I definitely think that's true. It's brought a lot of feelings that have been lurking in the dark out into the open.

But, I also think that feelings like that diminish when shunned and thrive when tolerated in the open. If this whole experience results in those feelings being brought out into the open, and then dealt with, by all means, it will be, like you say, the pain of healing. That would be great. But, that isn't going to happen unless the Republican party joins up in denouncing it. If they stay silent, then I think we'll see feelings people used to be ashamed of suddenly become somewhat acceptable socially.

It's frustrating to read an intelligent piece like this which so casually uses the term 'teabagging.' It really brings down the quality and credibility of the post to see broad group of people, mostly concerned with taxation, labeled with a crude sexual term.

But... But... Eh, I can't help it... They just walked so cleanly into that one. They practically named themselves. I mean, they wear actual teabags on their hats dangling around next to their faces... It's just too tempting. ;)

Anyway, I do think that the Tea Party protesters should do a better part of distancing themselves from the white supremacists but I would also interject three points in their defense.

I agree somewhat. Probably the extent of actual racism in the tea parties is exagerated by a drama-driven media. But, to some extent that isn't the main issue. Now it has been built up. The average up and coming Republican kid sitting at home has been made aware that there are white supremacists amongst the teabaggers and he's waiting to see what the Republicans do or don't do about it. The party leadership needs to act as a role model to their members and make it clear what the appropriate way to respond to racism is. If they do nothing, they're sending a message that tolerating racism is ok.

In my opinion, the Reps should address the issue... but I also see where they could be afraid to do so out of fear of how the left and the media will spin such a response.

Yeah I think that's dead on. It is a problem. But, I think that fear is unfounded. I know personally that if I heard some big time Republicans speaking out against white supremacy "ah ha! I knew the racists were really there!" would be the last thing from my mind. Personally I am certain I would be impressed with whoever took the stand and more inclined to support them.

For example, during the campaign McCain took very clear and vocal stands against racism, claims that Obama was a muslim or a terrorist, etc. Every time he did, liberals were thrilled with him and he gained in the polls. For instance, you may remember that McCain rally where a woman from the audience said something about Obama being a muslim terrorist. McCain jumped over to her, snatched the mic out of her hand, and admonished her sternly. He said, "That is absolutely not true. Senator Obama is a good man, a family man, and a Chistian man. He just happens to also be someone with whom I disagree." None of the liberals I know gloated over that one bit. Frankly a lot of them were talking about how great he was (for a Republican).

But after the campaign ended we stopped hearing those kinds of messages from the GOP. I honestly believe that if a prominent Republican came out and made a great speech about how white supremacy conflicts with the deepest principals of the Republican party, that nobody should make the mistake of thinking that the Republican party tolerates racism, and that those who think that a black man shouldn't be president can take a hike, he'd instantly be the most popular Republican out there. I even think a lot of Republicans are getting a bit bugged out by the racism, even if it's only a perception of racism. They want their leaders to stand up for what they believe in and to distinguish it from what the white supremacists stand for.
 
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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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:
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

reefedjib;1058313902Instead of hiring quotas said:
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.

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.
 
That was an interesting background on college admissions...

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/education/58452-does-more-money-fix-bad-school-performance.html :)
 
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. :lol:

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

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.
 
So we cannot trust anything, so how do we know anything?

No, not quite... just accept that it's truth mixed with spin. The reporters know the questions that they can ask, or not to ask, etc... and then their bosses will double check that before writing it to the newspaper or the newscasters teleprompter.

The majority of people read the headline and the first paragraph and then move on to the next article, then a smaller group reads the headline and a few paragraphs, and only a small percentage will read an article to the end.

So, what you'll often see is that in the first paragraph will be one message that gets contradicted in the final paragraph... what are you supposed to trust?? The message aimed at the majority that don't really read... or the message aimed at the minority??

So, the point is that you need a level of discernment when reading from mainstream sources... as well as non mainstream sourcesbut for different reasons...
 
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.

Well, most racism is not of the callibre of 'joining the white-supremacists'... it's typically more a 'preferntial' issue... where let's say in hiring policy, they might cut some people more slack then others... more like you're more likely to pick up something after a hot girl then an ugly girl... it's a preferential and uncontrollable reaction.

Now, we can shun the people that demonstrate racial bias in their hiring practises, oddly enough I've been involved in such a claim against such a person... but it wasn't racist against a black person... In honesty, in my line of work at least, the majority of the decision in hiring is based on your performance and not your appearance.

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. :)

All I'm saying is that given the time I could show you no less then 5 mainstream newscasts where there were innappropriate racial associations to the opponents of various issues... The only place that might have SOME legitimacy is with the birther issue... McCain being a white guy would have probably suffered less scrutiny from the birther issue... being born in panama and all (I know, at a millitary base). Though, I am confused as to the secrecy of the president in showing the document that would shut everyone up conclusively.

I totally agree. That's what I'm asking for- more shunning from Republican leaders.

Yes, you might agree... but there are people that are taking your views as a means of implementing legislation.


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.

It may be that you aren't aware to the degree this is being done... I wouldn't be surprised if I could find 10-15 examples spread over various newscasts from various sources.

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.

Well, because their actions are scrutinized, and noone had any issue with making the guy president... hell about 80% of people approuved of him wanting to give him a chance to prove himself. So out of the 20% that did not approuve you'd have a mix of republicans, independants, and yes, some people unhappy that we have a brown president.

Obama's approuval rating is at or below the 50% level based on the studies I've come across... 30 % of people don't become racist, they hate him on the issues... so pointing to race AS an issue is taking away from legitimate debate on those issues.

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.

Now, that is a sensible viewpoint... I can't disagree with that much.

I do have to make a couple of notes :
- although the media mouthpieces do not represent the views of the left, in a sense they speak for them (or against them, whichever)... like it or not, these people do their best to frame the debate in such a way that no answers are ever found.
- Ron Paul said it best, referring to the white supremacist supporter shill, "just because he supports my views doesn't mean I support his views"
- The statements are not as 'off the cuff' as you might think... they all read their teleprompters real well, it's a very delliberate tactic to frame the debate for the majority of people... now, we can seperately debate the level of influence the media has on the minds of the masses, but you don't need to look much further then the trends on this very forum... on any given day that a story runs, you can almost tell which newscast the person watch based on the opinions they express.
 
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.

LOL... The Democrat party is the race-driven party. It is standard sleazy-dealing from the bottom of the deck. Just look at how the race card has been escalated during the last Democrat Primary. That was flat out a race-baiting blood bath. Obama and Clinton were covered in it.

Ask Bill Clinton about race baiting, or Geraldine Ferraro... from the machine of the Great Uniter, Taxer, Spender and Wimp.

Affirmative action is racist.
And if an R dare mention its end, what happens? He's pegged as a racist.

This is not to say that there are not a lot of racists in the Republican camp.
Republicans with race problems have very short careers.
Can that also be said of Democrats? No.
They get to be Senate Leaders and national figures. Their organizations peddling this crap become nationally known: PUSH, Rainbow, ACORN.

A much larger issue is the "covert"/passive racists.
LOL...

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...
Ours is not the party of skin color, or the race card.
Are you blind? Who has been throwing the race bombs?

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.
Why not call it modern enslavement?
The State Plantation.
Decades of The Man making sure the Brothers and Sisters are dependent on The System and remain in The State Plantations (Ghetto's).

Why don't Democrats call for and put an end to it (LOL...)... because it is obvious... it keeps people down, dependent and like Hamas and The Hezbo's... they get to blame their adversary for their problems their leaders have created? I say leaders because as a bloc, their followers vote D to the tune of 90+%.

.
 
Last edited:
Republicans with race problems have very short careers.

I am glad you enjoyed what I wrote! :)

Here I was talking about the members of the party, not the politicians. Same for talking about the Dems, not the pols.
 
And what sort of punishments do you suggest for these naughty liberals?

Well maybe we need to place all of these "naughty liberals" in concentration camps after the OATH KEEPERS strip them of their Bill of Rights.


YES, YES punish those infidels for they are not true Americans !! Some of them propbably were not even born here.
 
Last edited:
How does Garbage Wilson calling the president a liar make his concerns racist? You guys keep bringing race into this, when it really is no more of a factor than people not liking George Bush because of his accent. IOW, there are really reasons to oppose either man.

"Garbage Wilson" is that a nickname ?
 
Why are you saying that racism is isolated solely on the Republican side of the house? The Republican party was the party that freed the slaves and intituted the Civil Rights Act. There is an inherent soft racism in welfare policy, a darling of the Democratic party.

Let us not lie and revise history. The Republical party did not initiate civil rights. They joined in to help pas civil rights but inititiate it . Give us a break !!
 
Let us not lie and revise history. The Republical party did not initiate civil rights. They joined in to help pas civil rights but inititiate it . Give us a break !!

True enough. I mispoke. Keep me honest! :2wave:
 
Let us not lie and revise history. The Republical party did not initiate civil rights. They joined in to help pas civil rights but inititiate it . Give us a break !!

I'm sorry for such an unfounded avalance of tidbits but I came across this on another forum and it seems appropo.

• Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
• Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
• Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
• Democrats fought to keep blacks in slavery and away from the polls, and they started the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize them.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
• Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
• Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
• Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
• Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
• Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
• Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr.(father of Al Gore Jr.) and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
• Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
• Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting.
• Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
• Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
• Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
• Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
• Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton's mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
• Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
• Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
• Republicans founded the HCBU’s and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
• Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
• Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
• Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
• Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
• Republican President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
• The 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.
• Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.
 
I'm sorry for such an unfounded avalance of tidbits but I came across this on another forum and it seems appropo.

Those are all very interesting. But strictly speaking he was correct.

The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[1] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964]Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Back
Top Bottom