- This topic has 5 voices and 46 replies.
-
Posts
-
Interesting. Personally, I would much rather be governed by the right side of the spectrum than the center, and I think that the Founding Fathers would be considered right-wing extremists in our day and age, even by centrists. Unfortunately, given the times we live in I would normally need to explain that “far right” in my mind refers not to the racist neo-nazi type of ideology, which is just plain stupid.
Don't get me wrong, I am right of center as well. I just don't lean as far to the right as the Buchanan's and Jerry Falwell's do. I think they make some good points at times but I am not certain I would vote for them. I believe America was founded and should remain a Christian nation, but I think there is room for tolerance within limits. The model I am thinking of for tolerance is the kind of tolerance the Jews achieved in Wilhelmine Prussia not the anything goes tolerance. Anything goes is hedonism and destructive in and of itself. I am willing to tolerate anything as long as I don't perceive it to be threatening me and mine. However, the minute I perceive it as being a threat, I become an implacable enemy. You will never catch me voting Democrat regardless of the promises they make, they are totalitarian socialists in the same vein as Marx. I learned long ago that a zebra can't change it's stripes nor a leopard it's spots, I dont expect the Democrats to abandon long cherished goals despite their rhetoric.
I am declaring it Angry Mob week. Maybe if we all get angry enough about the disaster they are trying to make out of healthcare some of the idiots in both parties will start listening to the American people. I doubt it, but Hope dies last.
Isn't that racist? ::) ;D(I thought it was a tank...time to check the glasses)
There is no possible way I can answer your question without somebody getting offended. ;D I thought up about 4 different smart-aleck responses immediately. I have decided that I will be part of the Angry Mob until the leadership in Washington actually seems to want to get something done instead of score political points off the opposite party, which might be never. Republicans are not much better at coming up with logical solutions than democrats are.
Gonna try this again.Not racist, just monochrome 😉 ;take a look are the polychrome version... we're all there!
It's okay… just an Ansel Adams thing to me. He used b/w more because he could avoid people getting hung up on the colors, he cared more about the tonality. Said the colors got in the way sometimes; people saw the scenery not the scene. I agree.
These days with the charge of racism being thrown around so much it pays to be careful. Despite what the op-eds say the charge still carries weight.Personally, I think you can oppose the president's policy proposals without being a racist. I opposed Hillarycare too.And Ski no, I didnt think you were being serious.
Personally, I think you can oppose the president's policie proposals without being a racist.
I would certainly hope so. I think that the recent allegations of "racism" behind criticism of the president are so ridiculous that it's troubling even to dignify the claims, but obviously we must do so because society as a whole has a politically correct streak and a response is better than no response.That said is there racism out there against the president? Yes, I'm sure there is. At the same time, there was likely some racism against George W. Bush or bigotry against him because of his religious beliefs. But the level of this kind of belief can be so low that it's not really worth discussing it. That doesn't stop people from painting opposition to Obama with the same brush, which is incredibly unfair.The problem is that 1) the media/society takes the charges regarding racism against Obama more seriously than it did with the charges of similar beliefs against W., and 2) since white-on-black racism is such a loaded issue, it is a means of ignoring the criticism on its merit and wiping it all away. Meanwhile, a radical agenda gets a free pass.
This all gets back to the idea of stereotyping and bias issues. Both are considered negative (and usually are) but are mostly a lazy way out; just accept the conventional wisdom on the issue without having to challenge yourself to find out the real answer.It is far easier to say that when someone disagrees with the Prez it's because of his skin color (which he has no control over) and is therefore a racist... than when one disagrees because his ideas are bunk (which he has control over) that the Prez might have crappy ideas.Many people don't get it; it's okay not to like someone or something... one just has to have a legit reason. It has to be something they can control.
since white-on-black racism is such a loaded issue, it is a means of ignoring the criticism on its merit and wiping it all away. Meanwhile, a radical agenda gets a free pass.
You hit the nail on the head right there. Claiming racism is a means of stifling debate. I find it ironic since the One's campaign was supposed to usher in a new era of cooperation and bipartisanship. Of course, that was before all these republican and conservative racists started disagreeing with the enlightened agenda of their anointed one.I think it will be very interesting to see the results of the mid-terms next year. I predict that the Dems will get the same proportion of minority votes as they did last year but they will lose a whole bunch of their white voters. Any thinking person can see that the vast majority of disagreement with Obama has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with principle. The charges of racism will only hurt the Dems in the long run, especially if the Republicans point out who as historically stood up for minority rights, and it is not democrats.It may be racist to say it but many white liberals are also getting tired of the constant charges of racism. They see that debate is being stifled and I must be having a positivist jag because I still find a little faith in my fellow americans that they will not keep this demagogues party in power now that he has shown his true colors.
A surprising piece coming from the AP:FACT CHECK: Health insurers' profits 35th of 53The article states that last year, the avg. profit margin of the health care industry was only 2.2%, and profit margins grew only slightly during the Bush years. Notice how we always hear about the "lies" being spit out by the right in regard to health care, while the accusations of "immoral" or "obscene" profits by the left normally go unchallenged.
