Journal Timex's Journal: Open-minded Liberalism at its best 23
ABC News correspondent John Stossel has written about an interesting "turn" in events: where before the presidential election, Obama supporters spoke about "transcending racism", now that Obama occupies the Oval Office, accusations abound that anyone in opposition to Obama is "racist".
RTA for an interesting write-up.
Sadly, I see in this more of the same from the so-called Enlightened Liberal. They who proclaim that one must have an "open mind", accepting people regardless of their appearance, their beliefs, their object(s) of desire, they are the first to become overly critical (dare I say "condemning" or rejecting?) of those perceived to have "called the shots" for ages.
In other words, the Enlightened Liberals tend to take the approach of "accept everyone except those who oppose us".
Myself, I am not foolish enough to think that everyone will agree on everything. I'm also not foolish enough to think that the best way to find "peace" is to force people to my way of thinking.
Letter to the editor of the Oregonian (Score:2)
I'm paraphrasing here, but the point is perfectly clear, this is from a letter to the editor of the Oregonian printed just this morning:
"If Black Leaders in North Portland can claim that they have no representation in civil government because the mayor and all the councilors are white, can white people claim they have no representation in the White House because Obama is black?"
I'm not one who accepts the modern form of unconditional love- in fact, I wrote blog posts on it in the last few months- of mere to
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is simple: No. The Veep is white, as is the Secretary of State, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong, the correct answer is that the color of a person's skin has nothing to do with representation.
Re: (Score:2)
You are spot-on on this point, I think. Remove skin pigmentation from the equation, and we're all still human.
Skin color should not (and does not) have anything to do with the rising opposition to Obama's policies.
Here, let me fix that for you ... (Score:2)
Remove skin pigmentation from the equation, and we're all albinos. Or Michael Jackson.
Okay, that last one is creepy :-)
Anyway, it doesn't matter. A few years ago I stated that the tipping point for the deficit was $10 trillion dollars. Sure, there might have been SOME elasticity in that number, but not much. Recovery from the Bush years is now impossible under any scenario that doesn't involve a combination of massive inflation (t
Re: (Score:2)
Even with an "inflate the debt away" game plan, drastic cuts to services and entitlements, and higher taxes, would only be postponed by a few years. And as interest rates start their climb back up (to compensate for the higher inflation rate), it becomes a runaway feedback loop ... Check the numbers out - http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org] - there's no way to avoid a choice between default or a US Peso.
...and the funny-sad thing is that the Democrats have only themselves to blame. The things they've pushed through with alarming speed to "fix" any problems brought forth from the Bush administration have only made things worse.
November is coming up. I can easily foresee a good number of Democrats that are running for re-election getting replaced. The only real question is "What party they are going to be replaced with?"
Re: (Score:2)
There's enough blame to go around - it's not just a Democrat thing. A lot of this crap goes back to Reagan. He was the one who pushed through deregulation of the S and L industry [nytimes.com], prompting the first financia crisis and bail-out, The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sponsored by 2 republicans, voted on along party lines linky [wikipedia.org], and signed by Clinton, and we saw what a mess that ultimately created. Then there's the fraudulent (illegal - and a war crime by the international definition) invasion of Iraq, and th
Wow (Score:2)
Oh my. (Score:1)
Here those liberals hoped, yea even prayed, that the election of Mr. Obama would signal that America had TRANSCENDED racism.
And imagine, now those same liberals have discovered that even though America did elect Mr. Obama, that same America HAS NOT TRANSCENDED RACISM.
Oh my. "Who would have ever guessed that such a thing would happen?", James asked rhetorically.
And, not only that, but apparently those same liberals are guilty of criticism. Imagine that. Thank goodness that those who are not liberals, do n
Re: (Score:2)
And, not only that, but apparently those same liberals are guilty of criticism. Imagine that. Thank goodness that those who are not liberals, do not criticize.
The point is not to say that non-Liberals are "innocent" of being racist, but that those who were claiming to hope that we could get past it were the ones making the accusations. They were, in effect, trying to pin any and all reasons for opposing Obama's policies on racism...
My knee-jerk reaction is that they themselves (that is, the ones that are slinging the racist accusations) are the ones actually guilty of racism. One needn't be a racist to believe that Obama's policies are faulty, any more than one
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, well, if you mean "Enlightened Liberals", then my comments would certainly be inappropriate. Not.
Dang. You mean every conservative is not a gun-toting racist? Then I withdraw my assertion.
And certainly, with all those accusations being unfounded, your protest is called for.
Thanks for setting me straight.
So, are those civil tongues you speak of honeyed, or bitter?
Ciao;
whoever
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're either WITH those that think that Obama's opponents are all racist or you're not. Which is it?
If you're with them, you're gravely mistaken on several fronts for reasons that I've been talking about: one does not NEED to be "racist" to oppose (Obama|Kennedy)Care or anything else Obama stands for.
My beef is not that any particular group may or may not be racist, but that the so-called "Enlightened Liberal", who constitute a grand majority of Obama's supporters, are willing to write off any oppos
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you're either WITH those that think that Obama's opponents are all racist or you're not. Which is it?
Well, at first glance, I would think that not all of Obama's opponents are racist. So I guess I am against them. But that seems to be a diversion from our discussion.
If you're with them, you're gravely mistaken on several fronts for reasons that I've been talking about: one does not NEED to be "racist" to oppose (Obama|Kennedy)Care or anything else Obama stands for.
Right, I am following this.
My beef is not that any particular group may or may not be racist, but that the so-called "Enlightened Liberal", who constitute a grand majority of Obama's supporters,
I don't buy that and you don't support that
are willing to write off any opposition to something as base as racism.
I don't buy that and you don't support that
Contrary to what these people think,
I don't buy that and you don't support that
there ARE other qualities to opponents.
I buy that, yet I imagine you would call me an Enlightened Liberal, or worse. So where does that leave us?
I think calling the "race card" is just a quick-n-dirty way to get the attention off of the real issue.
I think making up the calling of the race card is all that liberals do
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that and you don't support that
I said it, so I must, generalizations and all. If the Left can make generalizations and not be called on it, why can't I?
I think making up the calling of the race card is all that liberals do is being a "liberalist", wherein a person's choice of being a liberal is held against them with trumped up charges and prejudice.
I'd LOVE to be proven wrong with examples in modern history where the Conservatives accused Liberals of being "racist" for opposing Bush's policies. If you can do that for me, I'd appreciate it. If you can't, then that pretty-well proves my point.
Re: (Score:1)
When I say you don't support that, I mean that you do not make citations in support of your position. I did not mean that you are a hypocrite, and I do believe you are whole-heartedly a supporter of your position. I mean that without you giving more than your subjective viewpoint, you are not persuasive.
I am not sure how showing you where conservatives accused liberals of being racist for opposing bush's policies has anything to do with this discussion. What I am objecting to is your absolutist position.
Re: (Score:2)
When I say you don't support that, I mean that you do not make citations in support of your position. I did not mean that you are a hypocrite, and I do believe you are whole-heartedly a supporter of your position. I mean that without you giving more than your subjective viewpoint, you are not persuasive.
This conversation pertains to my JE, which is an observation that I chose to share with others on Slashdot. I'm not twisting your arm to read what I write. Whether you agree with what I said or not is pretty much a moot point; I figure that if I'm mistaken, someone will say something and try to convince me. Lacking that attempt to persuade, I assume I am on to something and continue on my merry way. :)
I am not sure how showing you where conservatives accused liberals of being racist for opposing bush's policies has anything to do with this discussion.
The point of that is to show that the only people that are throwing racist accusations (from the White H
Re: (Score:1)
I'm curious why you're so defensive over this.
Funny thing is, the same question occurs to me. I'm curious why you're so defensive over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is, the same question occurs to me. I'm curious why you're so defensive over this.
I'm NOT defensive, merely wondering out loud (as it were) about Obama's people making these sorts of accusations.
Re: (Score:1)
merely wondering out loud (as it were) about Obama's people making these sorts of accusations.
Funny thing is, that is not all that you wrote. But you sure are defending your position, broad though it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever. If you don't like what I write, don't read my JEs. It's that simple.
If you have something CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the conversation (corrections on my train of thought, kudos, whatever), then please go crazy. If all you're going to do is tell me I'm being defensive, I'll kindly guide you to the door and ask you to find something better to do with your time.
Re: (Score:1)
OK, we have a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
How about neither? Some of Obama's critics are clearly racist. Many more not. You can try and define the terms as, ahem, black and white as you want, or you can live in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
How about neither? Some of Obama's critics are clearly racist. Many more not. You can try and define the terms as, ahem, black and white as you want, or you can live in the real world.
Ah, but what does it say about the mindset of the accusers? This is kinda where I was going with all this.
Consider: