Why is it always the race card?

[Rhodie]

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

So you think he should have ignored gross examples of incompetence and waste like this? I'm sorry, but welfare reform is much needed, and was even more so back then.

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:


A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.

Yeah but to be brutally honest, the Democrats have nothing in common anymore with their 19th century counterparts.

[Rhodie]

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

Let us examine that claim for a moment. By 'we', do you mean, certain white people. I'm afraid I don't buy the view that all white people should feel shame and guilt for what happened to black people, as we didn't do it collectively, it was the actions of certain people in society. Whilst I believe what happened was wrong in America, I don't personally feel any guilt for their treatment.

[Rhodie]

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.

That's what the evidence suggests.
Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?

People will never move on and forget about the predjudices of the past if the corpse of those predjudices is constantly being dug up and publically displayed. Proclaiming that every white person should feel personally guilty about what happened to 'x' minority only engenders resentment and fosters extremism. There'd be no Pauline Hanson, David Duke etc if the left stopped rubbing this pervasive guilt in peoples faces.

[Rhodie]

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.

That's what the evidence suggests.
Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?

People will never move on and forget about the predjudices of the past if the corpse of those predjudices is constantly being dug up and publically displayed. Proclaiming that every white person should feel personally guilty about what happened to 'x' minority only engenders resentment and fosters extremism. There'd be no Pauline Hanson, David Duke etc if the left stopped rubbing this pervasive guilt in peoples faces.

Oh yes because poor David Duke is a victim and is only reacting to the horrible attacks of the left.

And it's not abut "guilt." It's about responsibility. White privilege is real.

I didn't mean it like that with David Duke. What I mean't was far-right groups would garner far less support if the left didn't go no so about injustices that happened 50 years ago.

So if White privilege is real, what do you propose to do about it. Intense redistribution of wealth from whites to blacks.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

He may have worked for a living, but he was handed a career by the virtue of his Dad's connections and money, which put him in numerous private schools and through Harvard.

I think you are wrong to assume that the majority welfare recipients don't work for a living. Most of them do. However, many work in low-wage jobs without benefits. Many also have criminal records due to police profiling, which makes it harder for them to find a job that pays a living wage. Thus begins a cycle of poverty and reliance on (weak) governmental programs like TANF and Food Stamps.

The majority of welfare recipients did not have the advantage of the informal and formal networks and money that Mr. Romney was PRIVILEGED to have the day he was born.

Yeah well there's nought you can do about someone being priviledged. Also, why do you sympathize with them, if they have criminal records?

These government programs trap the weak in poverty, as they provide an excuse for them not to find work.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots. 

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere. 

What does that mean.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots. 

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere. 

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

Listen, you can spin your position as much as you want, but you're still a vulture capitalist who cares only about himself and about no one else. It is because of people like you and Mitt Romney that this country has been going downhill since the 60s.

Nah

Your country is going down the toilet because its unable to get its fiscal house in order. People on the left such as yourself simply cannot see that there must be massive reductions in public spending in order to achieve this, in combination with far less drastic tax rises. The politics of the United States is broken, and in serious need of repair.

Anyway, be glad your country hasn't gone downhill to the extent the country I was born in has (not New Zealand).

[Rhodie]

This thread is white privilege at its worst. TANF needs reform? How? The program is as toothless as its ever been, having largely failed in its role to protect against economic disasters like the one in 2008. I could see if we were talking about an increase in benefits, but of course we are talking about a scaling back of the program.

This is what frustrates me the most. People who have never even lived at the cusp of poverty (like Romney) are demagoguing this issue, trying to push forward a negative stereotype when the reality of programs like TANF is very different. Romney was given everything by his father, but he's going to judge others who are less fortunate than him?

No actually he 'worked for a living'. A concept many on welfare should try. Are you suggesting that anyone who is not on welfare (and therefore pays the taxes for it) should have no say in how the system is run.

If the jobs are available -- and if the welfare recipients are the sorts of people that one wants on the job. In a really-nasty recession such might be almost as pointless as telling a destitute person to make wise investments in capital markets.

Then what is the point of our subsidising their existence on welfare.

Have you ever heard of the words "useless eaters"?

I assume your talking about Nazism. You misunderstand me. I support helping the deserving poor and disadvantaged through charity. I myself have given money to charity regularly. I don't support on the other hand this idea of the government redistributing the hard earned wealth of the tax payer to the poor, usually the undeserving. The state should get out of this vicious cycle of subsidies to the poor and unemployed, which provide them with no incentive to work, earn and save. Not only that, it would ease the tax burden on the hard working backbone of society, the employed.

Nazism, yes. That was in part a reference to the Nazi practice of murdering the handicapped. But it wasn't only Nazism. Communism did it, too. Solzhenitsyn tells us that the Commies of the early Soviet Union frequently gave orders to 'destroy parasites upon the working class', and local Commies interpreted that to mean not only the elimination of the old ruling elite but where such people could not be found they often killed the crippled and mentally-impaired. At the extreme, even beyond the madness of the Soviet Union and the Third Reich was "Democratic Kampuchea", which executed anyone who failed to fit into its insane demand that people be nothing but obedient robots.  

Murder is murder whether it is through shooting or starvation. Civility depends upon the recognition of the value of humanity even if people frustrate political, personal, or economic objectives. A system  that allows people to die because they lack the means or character to 'contribute' to society violates one of the most basic moral laws that has ever existed.

Charity is not enough. An economic system that ensures that people who do the work are compelled to live at the brink of hunger allows for no charity except for the charitable contributions of people who profiteer off the system. Economic elites in contemporary America are as vile and selfish as those anywhere.  

What does that mean.

People who take advantage of the no-holes-barred style of capitalism to screw others and get rich, aka most of the corporate class.

I see no problem with this

Yeah, a corporatist stooge realist like you wouldn't because you don't care what lives are extinguished or damaged inconvenienced on your path to riches. You aren't right-wing a dreamer who puts 'social responsibility' before anything elese, you're a corporate opportunist practical businessman, just like Mitt Romney.

This is fixed.

But honestly, alluding to the remarks flung around, lets just have some standards and civility in posting.

Listen, you can spin your position as much as you want, but you're still a vulture capitalist who cares only about himself and about no one else. It is because of people like you and Mitt Romney that this country has been going downhill since the 60s.

Nah

Your country is going down the toilet because its unable to get its fiscal house in order. People on the left such as yourself simply cannot see that there must be massive reductions in public spending in order to achieve this, in combination with far less drastic tax rises. The politics of the United States is broken, and in serious need of repair.

Anyway, be glad your country hasn't gone downhill to the extent the country I was born in has (not New Zealand).

Yeah, maybe if we cut military spending to 1960s levels that would work (I'm for this BTW), though to say we would be reducing public services in this country is laughable. There are no public services in this country.

Apart from Medicare, medicaid, pensions, welfare etc. Its these commitments that have ballooned to ridiculous proportions. Military spending could be cut, but not by much.

[Rhodie]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

[Rhodie]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

How do you "know"?

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

No one is saying black people can't be racist...

Yes but the flood of racism expounded by numerous black politicians is barely ever picked up on.

[Rhodie]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

How do you "know"?

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

No one is saying black people can't be racist...

Yes but the flood of racism expounded by numerous black politicians is barely ever picked up on.

Flood? Sure you aren't just a racist yourself?

I didn't say anything racist. Its just judging from Jesse Jackson Sr., Chuck Rangel, Julius Malema etc.

[Rhodie]

Ahh the age old defense...

I can keep being racist because black people are racist too! Who wants ice cream???

I didn't say anything racist you fiend!

[Rhodie]

Oldiesfreak, if a person views different races as so distinct that interbreeding is dangerous, that's racist by definition.  It was only a pervasive racism in society that allowed people to believe in distinct races to the extent of considering them almost different species in spite of the clear as day evidence that characteristics considered racial fall along a continuum.

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

How do you "know"?

I know there are many black kids even today that worry that they will get some sorts of diseases if they receive blood transfusions from whites.

Yeah, but Oldiesfreak, they're black, so no matter how ignorant they are they just can't be racist

No one is saying black people can't be racist...

Yes but the flood of racism expounded by numerous black politicians is barely ever picked up on.

Flood? Sure you aren't just a racist yourself?

I didn't say anything racist. Its just judging from Jesse Jackson Sr., Chuck Rangel, Julius Malema etc.

There is no flood of racist comments from black congressman. Sure, it happens from time to time and of course some Blacks are racist, just as is true for any race or ethnicity. But your comment may indicate that you are trying to inflate racist comments from Blacks in order to justify your own racist feelings.

Shoots himself in head

[Rhodie]

You are free to explain why you feel the need to make up facts about black congressman.

I don't make up factd. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as Hymies, and Rangel

"Fairness dictates that the sons and daughters of the white middle and upper classes share the burden of war".

Plenty of whites have shared the burdens of these wars

[Rhodie]

The race card is pulled by us Republicans too...for example: "You want to end the war? Israel will die. YOU MUST HATE JEWS!", and of course, "Affirmative Action is apartheid against white people!".

go join the libertarian party already.  after your recent conversion is their any Republicans issue/value you have that libertarian don't have.

I feel that I have more of a right to be a Republican than most Republicans since I don't just have conservative views that I want implemented in the future, I literally want to go back to the old platform we had in the Bob Taft era. That, plus instead of going to Republican clubs and eating rubber chicken in West Palm, I spent my summer helping out the Republican Congressional candidate in his office-something most local Republican activists are too lazy to do. Do not lecture me on how "Republican" I am. As it has been pointed out, your argument is the same if I said "go back to Israel."

It amazes me how long and winded these types of posts become, when all any rational person has to do is simply ignore it. These racists will only learn and adapt when others stop feeding into their debates and arguments. Shun, ignore and make these people feel as small as they are.

That, and my revived Christianity was what turned me away from my former racism and white nationalism. I still hold some of it, sadly, but I am making progress. I just think this-I should love all people the way God does.

Woah there, everyone who can add something to the conservative cause should be welcomed in the Republican Party, libertarians, neocons, social conservatives, deficit hawks, the lot.

[Rhodie]

Whenever you put southern African whites in the mix, it tends to happen.

Hey, Rhodesian!

(though I do actually now live and work in Cape Town)

[Rhodie]

Maxine Waters is a very good example of a racist black congressman if you're looking for one.

Not racist per say. Just an asshole.

[Rhodie]

Whenever you put southern African whites in the mix, it tends to happen.

Hey, Rhodesian!

(though I do actually now live and work in Cape Town)

Hey, I sympathize with you guys a lot. Mugabe has totally ruined your country. Just know that all people are capable of being racist, but usually racism by the majority is taken more seriously since they could actually do something about it. Again something you must be familiar with....

That is correct, and I am familiar with it. I have just meant in my posts on this thread that, yes redress is needed, but that it can be taken too far, and become counterproductive to the aims it wishes to achieve.

I thank you for your sympathy over my country. It means a lot to me when people say stuff like that.