@Sven.... "We both know that isn’t reality"Neither
number is reality. Both are just statistical samplings "adjusted" for
seasonality used as a barometer of economic health. Neither number is an exact
or truly representative number. It doesn't matter if you are a liberal or
a conservative, the numbers are what they are.Short of a sensor
every month.... your not going to get a "real" number. I am impressed
that you took the time to actually look up real numbers... that is more than
most do here.But I can also give you an explanation for the numbers
- one that has been forecast to happen for over 20 years. Its called the
retiring baby boomers. It is the event that many fiscal hawks have been warning
about for decades... that we will have this large group leaving the workforce
because of age... and that fewer will be paying into social security and
medicare. This is not a surprise, it was not unforeseen, it is not unexplained.
Economics for both sides have seen this coming, and it will likely get worse
before it gets better if we don't sone have an increase in family size or
permit more immigrants.
@SvennMorgan, UTExplain how can we have: 93 million Americans
out of the workforce, 46 million Americans on food stamps, 62.8% LFPR,========= Um, Ok - it's really not all that difficult to
understand or explain -- The 1% take 80% of everything.In
biblical terms, that's called "greed".
UtahBlueDevil said:"This is fundamentally a false statement. You
can not take one number, then try to contrast it by using another number
calculated in a totally different way. If you are going to use so called
'real unemployment' numbers, you have to use them for all time
periods... you can not mix and match."=====I went back to verify
the unemployment figures (U3 & U6) at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
for April 2014: * U3 = 6.3% (6.7% in March)* U6 = 12.3%
(12.7% in March)I know the Left would love us to just look at the U3
number and say: “Wow, unemployment dropped .4%…that’s
great!” We both know that isn’t reality. In April the civilian
labor force dropped by 806,000. This in turn caused the US Labor Force
Participation Rate to drop to 62.8%...the lowest rate since 1978! This is the
REAL reason unemployment dropped from 6.7 to 6.3% in April.Explain
how can we have: 93 million Americans out of the workforce, 46 million Americans
on food stamps, 62.8% LFPR, and demands by Democrats for an extension of
unemployment benefits, if current unemployment is really 6.3%? Sorry, but this
doesn’t add up!
Sven..... "When Obama took office in 2009, unemployment was about 7.8
percent. Current unemployment (meaning real unemployment) is about 14%."This is fundamentally a false statement. You can not take one number,
then try to contrast it by using another number calculated in a totally
different way. If you are going to use so called "real unemployment"
numbers, you have to use them for all time periods... you can not mix and match.
If your going to chastise someone on numbers... you had better be
using the right numbers yourself. As to the CBO report... I notice all the same
groups who praised the bad news, have not commented much on the fact that the
same report estimated " 4 to 5 million enrollments by March 31, 2014".
Of course we now know that number to be 3 to 4 million off... making all the
other assumptions based on those estimates - wrong.But that just
isn't the story we want to talk about. I have never seen people speed so
much time trying to hate someone so much... not sure what it is achieving.
It may be there are racists in both political parties. No news there.However, the key to understanding the racial dynamics of today's
political parties is the policies that each one espouses. One party advocates
policy to help the less fortunate, which are disproportionately non-white and
non-male. The other party advocates policy that helps the fortunate few, and
seeks to limit the ability of the less fortunate to participate in democracy on
an equal footing.Interestingly enough, the party of the fortunate
few has convinced a large number of people that supporting policies that make
their life harder yet is an appropriate way to lead the country. These folks
are taunted with the loss of their perceived status (war on Christmas, take away
your guns, gay marriage, etc) rather than actually assisted in the daily
struggle to keep their home, save for the future, educate their kids and live
out their senior years in dignity. All for a few bucks more for the
likes of folks like the Koch brothers, who certainly don't worry about
anything but their next billion.
The same deeply partisan rhetorical drivel by the same crowd. Did anyone
actually read the report? It said, “There are white racists in both
parties,” Silver and McCann conclude. “By most questions, they
represent a minority of white voters in both parties. They probably represent a
slightly larger minority of white Republicans than white Democrats.”"Minority of white voters in both parties". And yet that
minority seems to be very vocal on these pages regularly..... 2Bits.... you asked "I wonder what people would say if 93% of WHITE voters
voted for ANY candidate... it would be denounced as "racism". And they
would be right..."Utah Valley voted 88% for Romney in 2012.
Utah County is 94% white. Do the math By your own words... not mine. And Utah
county isn't the worst either. There are plenty of counties in Utah that
were worse. Now I would like to believe that most black people vote in
alignment with Obama because they have a shared life experience - being black in
America. Like wise, I expect that most Utah Valley residents voted for Romney
because they share something with him - and it is his religion, not his skin
@Matt9898When Obama took office in 2009, unemployment was about 7.8
percent. Current unemployment (meaning real unemployment) is about 14%. For
Obama to say that our current unemployment rate is 8% he has to do two things:
1) not include those who’ve exceeded their 99 weeks of unemployment
benefits, and 2) not include those who’ve stopped looking for work. Why
don’t Obama and the Democrats include these groups in their unemployment
figures?So, on one hand we’re being told by the Left how great
the economy is doing under Obama’s leadership, while at the same time
Obama and the Democrats are out their fighting to extend unemployment benefits.
Excuse me? Why the need to extend unemployment benefits if the economy is doing
so well and job growth is so strong? This doesn’t jive with your
unemployment figures Matt.BTW, The CBO Report from 2/4/2014
projected that Obamacare will reduce the number of hours Americans work by the
equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs.Sorry Matt, but if things
were as rosy as you say, the Democrats wouldn’t be bringing out the tired
old race/inequality card; they’d be running on their record…right?
To SvennMorgan, UTSorry, i should have been more explicit when I
said Obama fixed the political and economic messes caused by old white guys. I
meant: ended two costly wars, deduced unemployment from 10.5% high after the
great recession (which he inherited from you know who)to a current 6.5%.
Increase business profits and achieve a DOW Jones record high, stress test banks
so that a second bail out should not be required, oversee a renewed housing
market. I'm sure I've forgotten something. And Re: Bengazzi, um, check
out the bi-partisan senate report on the tragedy. And yes, there are many folks
on foods stamps and these are the working poor. It is possible to work full time
at Walmart and still qualify for food stamps. Pres Obama has lobbied for an
increase in the minimum wage. Guess who is against?
Matt9898 said:"Where Obama is concerned, it is not so much
racism as resistance to change that ignites conservatives. By definition,
conservatives are wary of change, and their traditional image of a leader is a
white older male. So the idea that a tall skinny black man would take charge of
the country, and worse, fix the myriad of political and economic problems caused
by the old white male leaders of the past was untenable"====Interesting analysis, but dead wrong. Let's break it down, shall
we?The only change we're resistant to, are the changes by a
Marxist, who--by his own admission--is fundamentally transforming this nation!
Obama's changes have given us: 1) over 14% unemployment, 2) 41%
unemployment for Black Youth, 3) 46 million Americans on food stamps, twice what
it was in 2008, 4) Scandal's galore: IRS, NSA, Benghazi, Fast and Furious,
VA Hospital, and 5) Foreign Policy that has resulted in chaos all over the
globe! Please provide examples of what Obama has "fixed"?BTW, You might want to ask Obama why he appointed so many “white older
males” to his cabinet. The Democrats are the party of
institutional racism. They use the race card to shut people up.
@Mickhail"historically speaking, it was Senate Democrats who organized
to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Republicans in the House and
Senate favored the Bill by a much larger percentage than the Democrats."You are right. That was the time before Richard Nixon's
"Southern Strategy". His "Southern Strategy" successfully made
segregationist southern Democrat switch party and joined GOP, helped Republicans
won southern states from Democrats corner and won big.Unfortunately,
it also fundamentally changed GOP into today's situation, the former
segregationists gradually prevailed in the party, changed the party's
thinking. now it can only retain a small fraction of minority votes, even though
the US demographic is tilting more and more to minorities. It is Nixon's
Southern Strategy that makes GOP more like "a party of white people".
Sorry - I didn't clean up formatting before submitting my comment. Here it
is again:I don't think attempting to measure racism or any kind
of prejudice by political affiliation helps any of us. IMO, no human is immune
to prejudice and prejudice of some kind is woven into the fabric of most
cultures. We soak in a lot of it without even realizing it. But it's a
bad word in America and most of us prefer to think of ourselves as good, so the
reflex is to deny that we harbor any ourselves. But virtually all of us do.
The trick is recognizing it as such.I think we're better served
if we operate out of the assumption that we DO harbor prejudice. No need to be
judgmental about it - it's human nature and not a sign of poor character
(unless one chooses to embrace and nurture it). Maybe we'll be more
willing to admit its presence within ourselves if the social consequence is a
"good on you for recognizing it" rather than "you're a terrible
person for having it."
Where Obama is concerned, it is not so much racism as resistance to change that
ignites conservatives. By definition, conservatives are wary of change, and
their traditional image of a leader is a white older male. So the idea that a
tall skinny black man would take charge of the country, and worse, fix the
myriad of political and economic problems caused by the old white male leaders
of the past was untenable.
Schnee: "Republicans opposed equal pay legislation ... even trying to limit
insurance coverage of birth control, ..., support voter ID laws ..., making
English the only official language, support Arizona's papers please law
..."Equal pay legislation is a red herring. Correcting for type
of job, length of service, etc. pay is equal. Most birth control is
cheap, and the govt has no business paying for our birth control. The wise
founders outlined the proper functions of govt, and this was not one of them.
Personal responsibility, anyone? (Or am I racist for suggesting it? Rather,
perhaps those suggesting that certain groups can't be expected to be
responsible, are the racist ones.)There ARE cases of voter fraud,
including in states that are trying to enact voter ID. (But the mainstream media
doesn't always cover them as well as Fox news does. No, Fox doesn't
make them up.) This is NOT racist. It is common sense. How many
official languages should we have? One is most efficient. I think it's
racist to suggest that nonEnglish speakers are incapable of learning English.If the Feds did their job and enforced laws, AZ wouldn't have to.
Obama criticizing the cops who arrested his (black) friend breaking into his own
house...before Obama even knew the facts...and taking sides in the Trayvon
Martin case before he knew the facts...that was racist. The media in
the Martin case, upon finding out the shooter was Hispanic (and therefore a
"minority") calling him a WHITE Hispanic just to make it seem like a
white on black incident...that was racist.The liberal media
reporting with great gusto any white on black crime but ignoring hundreds of
black on black murders in Chicago, and also the black on white "knockout
game"...that is racist.Admitting people into college that cannot
do the work, over people more academically qualified, just because they are
minorities...that is racist. It goes completely contrary to what MLK stood
for.Telling blacks that their problems are caused by racism, instead
of by a skyrocketing rate of unwed parents...that is racism.Telling
blacks that the GOP is racist simply because the GOP would rather give you a
hand up than a hand out; would rather you got educated and married before having
kids so you can be successful...is racist.
It would be nice if the Democrats responding here would stop the rhetoric and
please list how their party over the last twenty years have improved the lives
of those they list as being hated by Republicans.other than being the party of
promises, what have the left actually accomplished?We were promised six
years ago that this would all go away but it has not, it has only gotten worse,
a Why is that? Please don't talk about republicans in your answer, just
democrats. Thanks, I'll be waiting.
If you have Netflix watch this show:Runaway SlavesThen
The true racists are found in the Democrat Party; history is replete with
examples of this inconvenient truth. We know you’d like us to forget
this. We won’t! The racism of the Democrat Party is alive
and well today.Take for example how liberal Democrats view Black
persons. They don’t see unique individuals with skills, talents, gifts
and other intrinsic qualities that define the person. All Liberal Democrats see
is a “Black” person. All they see is skin color. They see all
Black persons as incompetent, and not capable of succeeding without Democrat
benevolence. Liberal programs like Welfare and Affirmative Action define the
repugnant bigotry of low expectations that Democrats have for black persons.The Republican Party has no history of racism, and doesn’t now.
The Democrat Party was built on racism. President Bush had one of the most
diverse cabinets of any US President; more diverse than Obama’s. But you
see, to Democrats, minorities that call themselves Republicans or conservatives
don’t count. The Democrat will not tolerate uppity minorities who live
their lives free from the Stereotypes that Democrats have laid upon them.I want specific examples of this Republican racism?
To suggest that White Racists are only slightly more prevalent in the Republican
Party is ridiculous. The Republican Party OWNS white racism, and that has been
the case since the mid-1960's and LBJ's signing of two important Civil
Rights bills. It is due also, of course, to the "Republican Southern
Strategy," look it up, wherein the Republican Party actively recruited
Southern White racists angry with the national Democratic Party and its civil
rights activism. White racism is the key reason why the Democratic South turned
bright Republican Red.And no, Liberals don't necessarily see
the world in terms of class conflict. The person who wrote that is confusing
Liberals with Marxists. They're not the same.Personally, I
think DN should be a little more careful about what they print, and realize that
Right Wing Propaganda is NOT news.
If you only pass legislation that benefits the 1 percent then don't
complain when only 1 percent of the population votes for you.For
decades the GOP has attacked minorities. They haven't done anything to
endear themselves to minorities and women. Only now do they
complain? Sorry repubs, this is yours. You built this. Now own up to it. Time
for the GOP to become accountable.
Sven, it was Nixon's plan to recruit every conservative white guy, call
them what you want, and make them Republicans following Johnson's Civil
Rights legislation of the 60s. Nixon succeeded, and that's where we stand
right now. You won't find too many people of ANY background who vote on
what parties stood for 50-100 years ago. Were Democrats once racists? Sure, but
that has little or no bearing NOW, which is what we're concerned with,
@slcdenizen: "Sure, and less than a generation ago your "people" had
a tendency of cultivating fear and terror on fellow citizens that didn't
have the same skin pigmentation. If I systematically terrorize you in front of
your children, can I hold them as adults to the same standards as my own
unterrorized children?"Forgive me for my confusion, but who are
"my people?" If you are referring to Texans as a group, then I agree
with you that many Texans were very racist while I was growing up. I found it
appalling. However, current residents of Texas are much more
racially diverse, and most of the rising generation are not really conscious of
race. Intermarriages are normal, and modern Texan families combine multiple
races and cultures. I think this is happening all over America.Why
then should we assume that a person is a racist "whether he knows it or
Are we just talking "Race"?Try adding - Gender, Age,
Religion, Nationality, Sexual Orientation, etc. ....
A racist is a person that sees everything in terms of race ignoring other
factors that actually affect how we live, work, play and educate ourselves. Look
at comments on this issue and ask yourself who they really are.
Anyone reaching back to the 1960s, and especially anyone reaching back to the
1860s, to attack Democrats for historical racism is utterly ignorant of the
seismic shift in American politics in the mid-20th century. Here are just a few
vocab terms as a starting point for anyone wishing to educate themselves: *Solid South*Dixiecrat*Nixon's Southern StrategyPolitical parties in this country aren't static, and yesterday's
Democrat is today's Republican. Yes, blacks vote overwhelmingly for a
party which once abhorred them. But when the white sheet-wearing segregationist
next door starts voting Republican instead of Democrat as the Democrats make
civil rights a cornerstone of their party, it's hard to blame them for
fleeing from the GOP in droves.Or as Colin Powell once chided the
GOP convention, "The party of Lincoln has not always acted like the party of
Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Young, Women...The GOP has problems
drawing anyone who isn't Archie Bunker.
Mark B"Sven, surely you are aware that all the past sins of the
Democratic Party you mentioned happened BEFORE the Nixon Southern strategy,
which was the impetus pushing southern states to be what they are today - the
GOP's heartland. If you didn't know that, now you do."Nice try Mark, but you didn't address your party's (The Democrat
Party) history with horrible problems with racism.
The funny thing is that if you look at the history of the GOP they are not
racist at all. If you go back to the end of the Civil War, the GOP wanted to
enact laws that would have accomplished what the 1960's Equal Rights Act
accomplished. They were 100 years ahead of their time. The GOP desegregated
the military prior to 1900, only to have that changed by Woodrow Wilson during
WWI.If you look at all of the civil rights bills up to and including
the 1964 Act, a majority of Republicans supported them nearly every time.If you want to look at more recent history, look at Bush's terms in
office. Racially he had a more diverse group of advisors than Obama does.Once you know the history, the Republicans have no problem with race.To "Schnee" you aren't helping things. You do realize that
if there are fewer woman at the top that only signals that the WH has issues
with hiring women into top spots, showing that they have serious gender biases.
Sven, surely you are aware that all the past sins of the Democratic Party you
mentioned happened BEFORE the Nixon Southern strategy, which was the impetus
pushing southern states to be what they are today - the GOP's heartland. If
you didn't know that, now you do.
@2bits"Actually John Kerry got 88% (according to Yahoo answers)That's what I'm talking about. Shnee says it (as if it's
fact)."Actually I said Gore and Kerry got around 90% so I stated
it as an estimate of a fact since I was being lazy and didn't look it up.
Looking it up now after you called me out on it, Gore got 90% and Kerry got 88%.
I think my estimate did pretty well (average error: 1%). If you want
to continue criticizing black people for being a few percentage points more
supportive of Obama than Kerry or Gore at the same time that the rest of America
was a few percentage points more supportive of Obama than Kerry and Gore...
well, I'm out of comments so I can only read that argument.
@gmlewis"general characteristics in common in people of specific
cultures"Sure, and less than a generation ago your
"people" had a tendency of cultivating fear and terror on fellow
citizens that didn't have the same skin pigmentation. If I systematically
terrorize you in front of your children, can I hold them as adults to the same
standards as my own unterrorized children?
"You are aware that Obama pays his female WH Staff 14-18% less than his male
staff...right?"Yes, if you ignore the fact that they're
hired for different jobs and that's the source of the unequal pay rather
than something gender specific (I also know that this is ignored in those 78% of
what men earn claims, and I would say the White House does need to get
consistent on using the proper metric and drop that 78% thing)."You are aware that Liberal icon NYTs fired executive, Jill Abramson,
because she demanded the same pay that her male counterparts
made...right?"Yeah, and liberals want to pass laws to help women
who are subject to that.@Wonder"I wonder what percent of
Mormons voted for Romney?"Well he got I believe 88% of the Utah
primary vote in a 4 person race in 2008 when he didn't even win the
nomination in the end so... I'd say in the 90s. @2bitsObama did 5 points better than Kerry based on your numbers with regard to the
black vote. He also did 5 points better than Kerry nationally.
@lost in DCNate Silver is a statistician who looks at data and draws
conclusions, generally correctly, he went 49/50 and 50/50 in the last two
elections as to which candidate would win which states. More recently he noted
that Republicans were a slight favorite to retake the Senate in 2014 which drew
some nonsensical liberal angst since this is the same guy doing the same thing
that was so accurate before. Fivethirtyeight is Silver's site. I assume the
other person you mention is someone working with him now but I'm not sure,
I do need to get around to reading his new stuff.
I wonder what percent of Mormons voted for Romney? Clearly they hate everyone
of every other religion. Makes as much sense as saying blacks hate whites (i.e.
are racist) because they voted for Obama. Oh, yeah, when I do something
it's ok. When anyone else does it, they aren't. Typical tea party
Republican response to everything. As usual, they can't put themselves in
anyone else's shoes. Look at it this way. You know how you really, really
liked Romney because you agreed with his politics and it was also pretty cool
that he was LDS? Well, maybe black people felt the same way -- they agreed with
his politics, and they thought it was pretty cool that he was going to be the
first black president. Liking his politics counted a lot more than the fact
that Obama was black (hence the black community's lack of support for
Herman Cain, e.g.)
I wonder what people would say if 93% of WHITE voters voted for ANY candidate...
it would be denounced as "racism". And they would be right...
Mark B said:"African American ties to the Democratic Party
didn't start with Obama. John Kerry also got about (or maybe it was OVER)
90% of black voters. They noticed guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond
become GOP converts, and knew that was NOT who they wanted to be with."Interesting. So, I guess the Black Community wants to align themselves
with the Party that: - Enacted "Jim Crow" Segregation
Laws- Voted in the minority in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act (Democrat support 61%; Republican support 80%). Interestingly, Democrat
Senators Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. filibustered this historic legislation- Placed Democrats with history of racism in positions of power like
former Democrat Senator (President pro tem) Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd was a
former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. - Gave us Japanese
Internment Camps a la President Franklin RooseveltYou're right,
being part of the Democrat Party has been so much better for minorities.
@slcdenizen: "By not recognizing racism, both historical and contemporary,
is racism by omission. Most Republicans are definitely guilty as
charged."You lost me. I'm racist if I don't recognize
any racist feelings in myself? Guilty until proven innocent? "Graceful racism?" What are earth is that!Racism is not
the same thing as Culturism, recognizing that there are general characteristics
in common in people of specific cultures. For example, as a general rule
Texan's have an affinity for the word Y'all. I say it all the
time.I think y'all got it wrong.
@Mark B, Schnee, and others...RE: "John Kerry also got OVER 90%
of black voters"...Actually John Kerry got 88% (according to
Yahoo answers)That's what I'm talking about. Shnee says
it (as if it's fact). Mark B hears and repeats it (as if it's fact).
And pretty soon everybody believes it...Political hacks do this...
just hear something they like... and repeat it (as if fact) without checking it.
And pretty soon we've all heard it enough times... that we ASSUME
it's FACT!====Kerry did not get 90% of the black
vote. And Obama didn't just get 90%. He got 93%! The GOP challenger got
only 6%! Google "10 Amazing Demographic Percentages of the 2012
Election" (National Journal)That's what I'm talking
about when I say this has been a VERY successful campaign. I don't think
we could get 93% of Americans to agree on ANYTHING...=====And Obama didn't just get 96% of their votes... they voted in larger
numbers than any election in history!Google "Blacks outvoted
whites in 2012, the first time on record" (CNN News)66% of
total eligible black voters voted... only 64.1% of white voters voted.
A clever way of telling lies is to change the definition of a word.
"Racism" appears to have meant something different to Martin Luther King
that those who put "racism" out there as a huge problem. I believe that
there is much more judgment made about content of character now - of all races -
than there was when he walked and talked on the earth. It would appear now that
if the content of character is judged, depending on the skin color and the
political of the speaker, the charge of racism may or not be applied.By the way, historically speaking, it was Senate Democrats who organized to
filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Republicans in the House and Senate
favored the Bill by a much larger percentage than the Democrats.Racism and Bigotry, in their original meaning, are things not to be valued.
Loving our neighbors, as ourselves, should be the objective of civilized
If the GOP doesn't have a big race problem (it does), it is only going to
get worse.And after years of observations, you will never convince
me that the unprecedented opposition to President Obama doesn't have racial
discrimination involved in it. The Tea Party is clearly driven in large part by
racial prejudice. Those on the right will deny it, but the problem is still
there, and most of us can see it. Minority populations certainly do.
Schnee said:"Republicans opposed equal pay
legislation..."You are aware that Obama pays his female WH Staff
14-18% less than his male staff...right?You are aware that Liberal
icon NYTs fired executive, Jill Abramson, because she demanded the same pay that
her male counterparts made...right?We'll just assume you forgot
to mention these.
@Lost in DC"Who are Nate Silver, Allison McCann, and five
thirty-eight? What is their agenda?"They are data analysts that
rely on statistics and reality who accurately predict elections. Or, in other
words, the liberal media.
By not recognizing racism, both historical and contemporary, is racism by
omission. Most Republicans are definitely guilty as charged.
African American ties to the Democratic Party didn't start with Obama. John
Kerry also got about (or maybe it was OVER) 90% of black voters. They noticed
guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond become GOP converts, and knew that was
NOT who they wanted to be with.
EVERYTHING... is a problem for the GOP if you listen to some people.
Sorry, just because a survey or poll says something that does not make it true.
Such surveys or polls are basically a pop quiz on how effective the media
propaganda has been. In this case, it has indeed been very effective, and the
Democrats and the media (the propaganda arm of the Democrat party) have been
branding Republicans as "racist" for decades.Ignore the fact
that any black conservative or Republican is vilified as a sell out, or
"Uncle Tom" or "oreo", or that black kids who do well in school
are told by their peers to "quit acting white" or that Democrats depend
on keeping blacks dependent on welfare to perpetuate their power.Bigotry does exist in our country, but it is not all racial, and it is not all
whites demeaning blacks. Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans really do
not care about a person's race, but rather the content of their character.
Dr. King would be happy, even if Democrats are worried about losing the support
of blacks which Lyndon Johnson asserted would last for 100 years (but that was
50 years ago).
Dems must be worried about November, they are dragging out the race card
again.Who are Nate Silver, Allison McCann, and five thirty-eight?
What is their agenda?
@2bits"It's because Democrats have been so successful in using
the media to propagate this myth that Republicans are engaged in a war on women,
war on blacks, war on Hispanics, war on gays, war on every minority group you
can define..."Republicans opposed equal pay legislation and
reproductive choice, even trying to limit insurance coverage of birth control,
support stop-and-frisk, support voter ID laws in states that have negligible
record of voter fraud (bit of a sore spot for people who fought for so long to
have fair access to the polls), making English the only official language,
support Arizona's papers please law on those suspected of being illegal
immigrants (yeah I'm sure there'd be no racial profiling at all
there...) and oppose same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination measures for
sexual orientation. Really, Democrats often don't have to do a
thing other than hold a microphone up to a Republican. @samhill"it doesn't include the crucial fact that the vote among
African-American citizens in favor of Obama... was an average of around
95%!"Gore and Kerry got around 90% of the black vote.
Is this article for real?Let's deal with some facts and
history, shall we?First, Donald Sterling is a big time Democrat
donor. Like other things, the media has desperately tried to ignore that little
factoid.Secondly:* Jim Crow segregation laws were
enacted by Democrats* The 1924 Democrat National Convention was host
to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history* The 1964
Civil Rights Act: Democrat support 61%; Republican support 80%. Interestingly,
former Democrat Senator Robert K Byrd (former Exalted Cyclops in the KKK)
filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as did Democrat Al Gore Sr.*
Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt gave us the disgraceful Japanese
Internment Camps* Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings and his history
of racial slurs towards blacks * Margaret Sanger, Liberal Icon
and founder of Planned Parenthood, in her 1939 "Negro Project" had as
her goal, the desire to greatly reduce the Black population, or as she referred
to them, "human weeds." Ever wonder why so many Planned Parenthood
Centers are in the inner-city? 13 million black babies aborted since 1973.I could go on, but I think you get the point. It is the Democrat Party
who has the documented history of reprehensible acts of bigotry and racism.
Yes. And it's not the democrats' fault.
“Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic argues that the real dangers are ... the
much more subtle and less immediately offensive 'elegant racism.'
.... 'Elegant racism is invisible, supple, and
I got to the and of this article, with most of which I agreed, I and was struck
by the fact that nowhere was mentioned one of the most glaring examples of
racism we've seen in our country in decades.Despite a brief
reference to it with the single sentence, "The 2008 election was the most
racially charged election in modern America...", it doesn't include the
crucial fact that the vote among African-American citizens in favor of Obama in
the last two elections was an average of around 95%! He also garnered a
majority of votes by people of other races, but by much slimmer and typical
margins. How much more obviously lopsided, racially speaking, can a statistic
get than this!?Ironically, to what do I attribute this amazing
omission of an example fairly shouting of racism in this article on racism?
Yes, you guessed it, racism. Perhaps of Mr. Coates' "elegant" sort
@2bits, Those democrats, fooling Americans into thinking that republicans say
racist things, by playing back media of republicans saying racist things.
Perhaps if the republican's didn't make it so easy for the
democrats.Most racism and bigotry are taught and are not a natural
state among children.Looking forward, as more and more racists and bigots
die off, they aren't passing on this bad behavior to their children.What is surprising, was how quickly the conservative posters on the
comment boards defended Donald Sterling, as being tricked, or it was OK cause
it was in private. While I would defend his right to say these things, I would
never defend what he said. It isn't about PC it's about what's
right, saying it in private doesn't make it "OK" either.
Yes... it's a problem.But not because they are racist.
It's because Democrats have been so successful in using the media to
propagate this myth that Republicans are engaged in a war on women, war on
blacks, war on Hispanics, war on gays, war on every minority group you can
define...It doesn't have to be true... it just has to be
repeated often enough, and by trusted media sources... often enough that most
people start to BELIEVE that it's true.Then it might as well BE
true...=====This has been a great campaign the Democrats
have been putting on. It has worked. It has gotten them elected many times.
But these groups never seem to look into what those Democrats are doing for
them. And I think that's the problem... that these groups expect their
politicians to do something for them.If Democrats don't
deliver... this campaign will eventually begin to be less and less effective.You can't pit Americans-against-Americans forever... without
tearing America apart. But they seem to think it's worth